The Trade in Draft Picks

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

I preface this by saying I don't fully understand the points system regarding drafting. Nevertheless, I have a question I'm sure someone here can answer. If I understand correctly, clubs who match bids to recruit sons of fathers are given a points discount. That is, a Round 1 pick is normally worth something like 3,200 points, but Collingwood will only need to give up 2,400 points to get Nick Daicos if he goes at pick 1. My question is why is there a points discount at all? In this example, Collingwood already has a benefit by being able to exercise a right not available to any other club to choose Daicos and "jump the queue" to get him. 

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

20 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I preface this by saying I don't fully understand the points system regarding drafting. Nevertheless, I have a question I'm sure someone here can answer. If I understand correctly, clubs who match bids to recruit sons of fathers are given a points discount. That is, a Round 1 pick is normally worth something like 3,200 points, but Collingwood will only need to give up 2,400 points to get Nick Daicos if he goes at pick 1. My question is why is there a points discount at all? In this example, Collingwood already has a benefit by being able to exercise a right not available to any other club to choose Daicos and "jump the queue" to get him. 

The discount is 20% in the first round then 197 points after that. 

The idea is to make it easier to match bids, so if it’s a close call between matching or not teams lean towards matching.

It would be a huge shame if teams missed out on father sons and the great history it has based on a narrow difference. Ie. rating a player at pick 10 and a bid coming at pick 7 

The real rort comes in with being able to match the points with all the crappy picks. As a simple rule the matching should be done by a pick within 18 of the bid.

Collingwood should at least be forced to find a pick in the top 19 of the draft. It’s crazy that the league hasn’t fixed that up yet.

Teams are making huge profits trading down the draft and securing a bunch of points, then effectively trading Monopoly money for real cash.

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

3 hours ago, Action Jackson said:

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.

There’s too much focus on where a player is born rather than their ethnicity I think. Mac really isn’t more or less represented or disadvantaged by being born overseas than his younger siblings. Meanwhile there’s kids who’s dads were gun footballers eligible because their parents briefly worked overseas.

Cat B rookies and incentives for the junior teams are enough to me. Leave the main draft alone entirely.

Extra spots on rookie lists will keep the talent coming in to AFL footy and provide role models. Then use the elite junior teams to engage with the communities. I’d be beefing up their resources a lot and trying to close the gap between nab league and state leagues that we have in Victoria, ideally by amalgamating the sides as they are in WA and SA. The added benefit of that is

At the moment the best way to get drafted is to be wealthy or lucky enough to get a scholarship at a private school. The second best way to be in an academy and ideally pop up on the school radars (no doubt with some afl club suggestions) so you too go to a private school! Being poor, unrecognised early junior talent and not ethnic enough to get in an academy is the worst spot to be in.
 

TAC clubs used to be the pinnacle of junior development. Now guys are getting better support and education at schools than so called elite junior clubs. 

[TRIGON 4,712]

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

At the moment the best way to get drafted is to be wealthy or lucky enough to get a scholarship at a private school. The second best way to be in an academy and ideally pop up on the school radars (no doubt with some afl club suggestions) so you too go to a private school! Being poor, unrecognised early junior talent and not ethnic enough to get in an academy is the worst spot to be in.

I hope you're wrong - but not saying you are. The egalitarian nature of AFL has always been a strong suit of our game, as opposed to the socio-economic effect that pervades across Soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby league.

[Sydney Pennski 269]

Is it just me or what?

When I first saw the heading of this thread, I thought it was going to be about the slave trade.

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

21 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

I hope you're wrong - but not saying you are. The egalitarian nature of AFL has always been a strong suit of our game, as opposed to the socio-economic effect that pervades across Soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby league.

Rugby League certainly seems to have a lot more players from difficult backgrounds than AFL footy these days. Just have to check their scandals and court dates to see that.

But the AFL has transitioned from working class kids to middle class and wealthy kids with access to better development.

Although one thing that's a big reason for that is the former players who often came from the country or the suburbs have used VFL/AFL footy to better themselves financially (via opportunities as much as payments for the older guys).

It's also a bit of chicken v egg with the game turning pro and the game getting a lot less violent. There's stories of great VFL talents who retired early to go to University or move away for vocations, now kids are investing in junior footy because if you make it big you've got a huge head start in life financially. As well as stories of how rough the game was and how many of the best players grew up in tough neighbourhoods. 

And it's not like the AFL isn't still taking in kids from different backgrounds, the schools have been fantastic with Indigenous players. But there's 2 drafts now. The one that happens for AFL clubs at 18 and the one that happens for kids in year 7/9 who get sports scholarships at private schools.  

[Lucifers Hero 36,973]

Clubs double dip with top NGA/Academy/F.S players! 

They 'cash in' their first round pick by:

• Use it to trade in a gun player before the draft (there have been many examples; the most recent being Bulldogs with Treloar).
• Trade it for a future first
• Trade it for a later first round pick in the current draft.  
• Trade it out before the draft then trade a similar pick back in after the player is drafted on draft night.

Then they accumulate late picks to draft the first round player.  They don't care if they end up with so so players at the end of the draft or no more players at all, if they have two potential first round guns.

 

It backfired on Collingwood and the Bulldogs were a bit constrained because they had a top player in two consecutive drafts.  

The reason the "# of picks = # of list spots rule" came in was to close a loophole and limit a club's ability to cash out of top picks and use a lot of 'junk picks'.  That rule helped a little bit but didn't stop the rorting of the tactics outlined above.  

To make matters worse the AFL has withdrawn the 'picks=spots' rule.

The 'cashing in' of picks tactics isn't limited to first round picks.  Note that in the o.p. both the Bulldogs and Pies are looking to trade out their 20-something second round pick for the same reason as they trade out their first rounders.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Premiers

[Nascent 7,200]

Collingwoods pick 27 now gone to the tigers for pick 38, 40 and a future 3rd.

Collingwoods move prevents our pick 37 from coming in earlier but aids our picks 49 and 57 to come in an extra selection.

Tigers now have 7, 15, 26, 27 and 28. A mini-rebuild of sorts?

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

Collingwoods pick 27 now gone to the tigers for pick 38, 40 and a future 3rd.

Collingwoods move prevents our pick 37 from coming in earlier but aids our picks 49 and 57 to come in an extra selection.

Tigers now have 7, 15, 26, 27 and 28. A mini-rebuild of sorts?

I think they’ll be even more aggressive and look to upgrade any/all of their first three picks up a notch too.

Doubt we would be keen but 17 for 27/28 could be an option for us.

They’ve shown they are really good at finding handy players in the rookie list and mid season drafts. Much more so than we are. So now they’re trading depth in the aim of finding some elite kids to jar their window back open. 

[Skuit 9,109]

On 10/15/2021 at 3:30 PM, TRIGON said:

I hope you're wrong - but not saying you are. The egalitarian nature of AFL has always been a strong suit of our game, as opposed to the socio-economic effect that pervades across Soccer, Rugby Union and Rugby league.

Eh? I thought Max made note a few years ago that he was just one of three players on our list who had come through the public school system? I reflect on my past and realise I never stood a chance compared to my peers who ended up in private schools. When I was in NZ, the locals would brag about the strength of their Union team against ours as a measure of population. They couldn't comprehend it when I said I've never met anyone who has ever played rugby union. But the same goes for Australian views on cricket, as compared to the Brits. No state school kid there (public means upper-class) plays cricket, they're all chasing the soccer dream. 

[Dwight Schrute 16,713]

Have i read this correctly that pick 17 - after father son selections will become pick 19 and the first live pick on day 2?

 

[TRIGON 4,712]

11 hours ago, Skuit said:

Eh? I thought Max made note a few years ago that he was just one of three players on our list who had come through the public school system? I reflect on my past and realise I never stood a chance compared to my peers who ended up in private schools. When I was in NZ, the locals would brag about the strength of their Union team against ours as a measure of population. They couldn't comprehend it when I said I've never met anyone who has ever played rugby union. But the same goes for Australian views on cricket, as compared to the Brits. No state school kid there (public means upper-class) plays cricket, they're all chasing the soccer dream. 

Max's comments illustrate how much the system has changed since the 70's and 80's.

[ChaserJ 3,956]

40 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Have i read this correctly that pick 17 - after father son selections will become pick 19 and the first live pick on day 2?

 

I thought that night 1 is the entire first round, regardless of the number of selections. The post first round selection (19 which will become 21) kicks off night 2.

[Jontee 3,624]

4 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Max's comments illustrate how much the system has changed since the 70's and 80's.

Sure has though any kid at the local primary who is good at sport can be offered or is encouraged to apply for a sports scholarship at the local grammar school.

 

[CBDees 3,162]

22 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Max's comments illustrate how much the system has changed since the 70's and 80's.

When I was at a government school in the 60s, there were a few guys from school drafted by St Kilda. One went on to Captain-Coach Melbourne F C.

[Lucifers Hero 36,973]

An article about draft pick wheeling and dealing:  picks-clubs-most-likely-to-swap

"The Demons entered the trade period without a first-round selection and walked out with Pick 17. But they mightn’t be done there, with rival teams wary the Dees could still try and force their way up the draft order because they have a specific player in mind. Melbourne also has Picks 37, 49 and 57, but is weighing up whether to use two or three live selections at the draft".

Who might be our 'specific player'?  Obviously likely to go before #17.  Let the guessing games begin!

Who will be our two or three picks?  Based on info in other threads (not in order of pick):

• A first round player, be it pick 17 or a better one if we can trade up.
• Taj Woewodin
• Andrew Mac if he slides past 20 or Andy Moniz-Wakefield (who could slide to a B rookie).

We currently have 4 overall list spots (Seniors + A Rookies) and 2 B Rookies.

With two or three draft selections we will have at least one overall list spot for a DFA, the PSD or MSD.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Premiers

[Dee-licious 1,798]

I was intrigued by this as well. I wonder if someone like a Sinn, Chesser, Goater, are the ones that they are looking at and thinking that they will go a little earlier than our pick. Or that someone like Knevitt or Williams goes a little higher than 37. All guess work at the moment. 

Taj seems to not be in the top 40 discussion, so that means the matching points are basically ziltch and we can afford to go into arrears in our future 3rd or 4th. AMZ seems to not be in any conversation, so could be he slides through to a Cat B. 

We might also to "train-on" 3-4 guys and have the 2 list spots available for them. Might work really well this year if there are a handful of guys that we think could make it, but had no exposed form. 

[BigMacjnr 278]

Is it possible that we go for Bulldogs pick 23? Taking the AFL media on face value for how many picks each team will be taking to the draft, only ourselves and Geelong have the arsenal and want (picks to take and value) to improve the dogs draft hand. 

If we trade 37, 49 and 57 for pick 23, dogs would effectively be 815 draft points up on the trade

Without the trade and in a worst case scenario (pick 2 bid), their draft hand would be: 2, 61 (current picks slide to 61), 93

With the trade: 2, 57, 65, 93. 

Not sure if that is appealing enough to do the trade but something to think about. Maybe we can get the 'slider' of the draft plus a bolter at 23. Then go into slight deficit next year to match the Taj bid.  

[Grimes Times 1,278]

44 minutes ago, BigMacjnr said:

Is it possible that we go for Bulldogs pick 23? Taking the AFL media on face value for how many picks each team will be taking to the draft, only ourselves and Geelong have the arsenal and want (picks to take and value) to improve the dogs draft hand. 

If we trade 37, 49 and 57 for pick 23, dogs would effectively be 815 draft points up on the trade

Without the trade and in a worst case scenario (pick 2 bid), their draft hand would be: 2, 61 (current picks slide to 61), 93

With the trade: 2, 57, 65, 93. 

Not sure if that is appealing enough to do the trade but something to think about. Maybe we can get the 'slider' of the draft plus a bolter at 23. Then go into slight deficit next year to match the Taj bid.  

Pick 23 is 815 points in value. The dogs would be 137 points up on the trade.

[BigMacjnr 278]

45 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Pick 23 is 815 points in value. The dogs would be 137 points up on the trade.

serves me right for trusting the online draft calculator. 

[Whispering_Jack 27,887]

A draft pick trade was made today. Nothing  really earth-shattering but still …

Collingwood sends pick 55 to St Kilda in exchange for a future fourth-round pick tied to Adelaide's finishing position next year.

The trade gives the Saints some extra draft points to withstand a challenge to their hold over NGA picks Mitchito Owens and Marcus Windhager. Obviously, this won’t help them save one or both of those players in the event that they are selected in the first 20 of the main draft.

[Leopold Bloom 279]

The whole business of draft pick trading is a bit strange. I’m thinking that Melbourne must have conceded that someone is going to take Mac Andrew inside 20 because it doesn’t seem to be making an effort to accumulate picks if that doesn’t happen. 

[58er 5,570]

On 10/15/2021 at 11:10 AM, 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. 

Why are they getting the advantage and we are not ? I have forgotten the rationale about the NGA but Dsicos  and Darcy are under Father/Son. 

[durango 1,976]

2 hours ago, 58er said:

Why are they getting the advantage and we are not ? I have forgotten the rationale about the NGA but Dsicos  and Darcy are under Father/Son. 

The Magpies got Isaac Quaynor and the Bulldogs got Ugle-Hagan.

[Elwood 3184 1,263]

3 hours ago, 58er said:

Why are they getting the advantage and we are not ? I have forgotten the rationale about the NGA but Dsicos  and Darcy are under Father/Son. 

Because clubs whinged and whined about compromising the draft and the advantage to the Bulldogs in drafting Ugle-Hagen at pick one so the AFL did something about it. Clubs are now prevented from matching bids on NGA’s in the top 20 (next year it goes to 40). Personally, I think that’s a gross over- reaction.