Page 3 of 95 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 1132

Thread: 2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

  1. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    If you are short of points in one draft, you can make the points up in the next draft.
    And shut the academy down for a year because we'll be short on points that second year to pick up anyone because of the points overdue from the previous year.

    I might just be for a break away comp ... the NVAFL (Non-Victorian AFL). Sydney, GW$, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Eagles, Freo, Port (in their prison bar jumper ... stuff you Chins Maguire!), Crows, NT Thunder (can't be worse than the Dees or Dogs) & the Roos who relocate to Tassie.
    Then the NVAFL could play the AFL Premier for the Champions of Australia Cup.

    See how the AFL cope without non-Victiran money!

    PS I'm a Victorian but very pissed at the AFL, Chins & Hawthorn.

  2. #26
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post
    If you are short of points in one draft, you can make the points up in the next draft.
    Great! We can use all our draft picks for the next 2 years to get the pair.

    This system was specifically designed to screw the Swans. Don't tell me that #1 pick is worth more than picks 17, 18 and 19 combined. Notice how the curve sharply dips down to the point around where our 1st pick is likely to be this season, so that it effectively costs 3 2014 Isaac Heeneys to get 1 2015 Callum Mills. And notice that later round picks and rookie picks are valued at zero, as if players like Dean Cox, Brett Kirk, Michael Barlow and Matt Priddis never existed.

    There were plenty of other methodologies to produce a similar kind of value system. But they chose the one that most highly values elite players by choosing salaries, instead of something like games played. I'm sure they played with a lot of alternative systems until they found the one where the Swans would have to pay the most.

    We haven't heard the last of this. (Well, at least from me that is.)

  3. #27
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    Quote Originally Posted by goswannies View Post
    And shut the academy down for a year because we'll be short on points that second year to pick up anyone because of the points overdue from the previous year.

    I might just be for a break away comp ... the NVAFL (Non-Victorian AFL). Sydney, GW$, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Eagles, Freo, Port (in their prison bar jumper ... stuff you Chins Maguire!), Crows, NT Thunder (can't be worse than the Dees or Dogs) & the Roos who relocate to Tassie.
    Then the NVAFL could play the AFL Premier for the Champions of Australia Cup.

    See how the AFL cope without non-Victiran money!

    PS I'm a Victorian but very pissed at the AFL, Chins & Hawthorn.
    Please don't shoot the messenger.

    This system will be up to debate. I think a realistic outcome is to boost the F/S discount up to 25% and to boost the Academy pick discount up to 35%.

    That's where I think the system will get too.

  4. #28
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    I already found one anomaly in the system:

    For example, the Swans sit with pick #17 in the draft. Someone bids pick 16 for Mills and the Swans counter by using pick 17. Under the present system the Swans would just relinquish pick 17. Under the proposed system it would cost the Swans 800 points net of the 25% discount from which the value of pick 17, 1025 pts. would be applied, leaving over 225 pts. to which the Swans would be granted pick #54. See Ayce Cordy example for illustration. So the Swans would actually get an additional late 3rd round pick under this system for the given scenario.

  5. #29
    recruit me pretty please! Cosmic Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Stanmore
    Posts
    608
    Or a new system where if say Melbourne want to bid pick 2 or 3 for Heeney, the Swans can say OK, take him for our pick 17 and we will take your pick 2 or 3???

    This way we are compensated what another club thinks one of our players are worth and they get to keep the player they wanted.

    A fair and open system which would encourage trading between clubs!
    doof-doof

  6. #30
    I think it's time for the Swans to play hardball on this one. Sydney and QBE have put several million into the academy under the current system. If the AFL are going to now move the goal posts so that other clubs get a greater benefit then they need to refund this cost to us and QBE. I'd like to see the Swans walk away from the academy until this is resolved to our satisfaction. I know this won't be easy and it will be messy but it is necessary so that the AFL realise the consequences of this direction.
    What p1553s me off is that when Geelong, etc got all of their great F/S selections for a third rounder no one was concerned, yet now that we are going to benefit it's a rort. If this is put in place I think we should tank like Hawthorn, Collingwood, etc so we get our men. Most clubs have done it. Our problem is that we are to good for it to be realistic.
    Last edited by S.S. Bleeder; 27th January 2015 at 10:56 PM.

  7. #31
    Goes up to 11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,326
    There is no way the club should even think about accepting that first draft of this so called new 'system'. It reeks and the northern clubs should fight this one tooth and nail.

  8. #32
    I accept that there will be changes to the existing system, but that proposal not only dramatically complicates the draft, but also the trade period, most likely free agency also, and creates a great incentive for the northern clubs to become secretive about their academy prospects and potentially play games with which draft they nominate for etc.

    They use the Heeney example to make it seem relatively plausible - but conveniently exclude Hiscox and Davis from the calculations. It will also make the draft a nightmare to follow when you have multiple clubs with academy and FS players nominated.

    The trade period will be even more of a grind with clubs having legitimate reason to quibble over moving only a couple of picks further up in the draft, even in the second and third rounds - given that will have a tangible impact on points you will have to pay off for nominating academy or FS players.

    Even more so if next years bottom teams try to blackmail us into other unfavourable trades by saying they won't bid their top picks for Mills, for example.

    If/when you have multiple prospects in the one year, it seems unreasonable to have to wait until draft night before knowing which picks might be bidded - you'll possibly be left with only a few minutes to have to decide whether you take 1 player and have to pass on multiple others, pass on 1 top prospect to take multiple others, or try to take all of them but jeopardise your ability to take players in the next draft. After spending years and millions on each intake, that doesn't seem a fair outcome at the end.

    It will also create great incentive to minimise the perceived value of your academy players - at a minimum there will be complaints about it from other clubs, even if it isn't happening. If the player wants to play for their academy club and that club wants them, why wouldn't players suddenly get injured before u/18 Championships, not be fit to partipate in the draft camp, play limited games in their final under-age year etc? Also play up their interest in other sports to put other clubs off drafting them etc etc.

    We're smart enough with our recruiting that we'll probably be OK either way - take the best academy and FS players and just top up with free agents if need be, plus hope a few of the players we would otherwise have picked late in drafts are still there to be taken as rookies.

    But it will be an extremely complicated way of doing things.

  9. #33
    it is not to complex in my opinion

    "If the proposed changes had been in place for the 2014 draft, the Sydney Swans would have had to give up picks No.18 and No.37, and its pick No.38 would have slide back to pick No.70 in order to secure highly-rated academy graduate Isaac Heeney"


    that is a fairly obvious scenario to ponder and the allocation is fairly straight forward.............but how many times are we really going to have a Callum Mills and Dunkley follow up the year after a Issac Heeney ??

    If any other team had a young Hodge, Selwood and Pendles land in their lap with first rights I would be screaming blue murder !!!! Murder !!!!

    This would be a very rare event I feel, but nonetheless it is a true event now and it is an event that is unfair to all the other teams in the comp ie for the Swans to have first pick at 3 potential super stars of the game with out some sort of compensation.

    It is equally unfair that we have funded the academy for so long and finally when there is some fruits to bear we smashed by the AFL and receive minimal gain for effort and $

    -----------------

    I suspect that the AFL has gone a little tougher then what will be put in place as a top 5 pick plus a pick 70 does not quite seem fair

    If it does come into effect I would take Mills..............we already had a massive win with Heeney................I would back the development of some of our other young players to stay with us but let be honest we can carry less recruitment in numbers for a season to get a Mills........it is a rare event that is worth taking the mix of pain and pleasure
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"


  10. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmic Wizard View Post
    Or a new system where if say Melbourne want to bid pick 2 or 3 for Heeney, the Swans can say OK, take him for our pick 17 and we will take your pick 2 or 3???

    This way we are compensated what another club thinks one of our players are worth and they get to keep the player they wanted.

    A fair and open system which would encourage trading between clubs!
    Not @@@@ing bad

  11. #35
    According to the Herald Sun this morning, if you applied the proposed new system to the Heeney trade we would have effectively sold picks 18, 37 and 38 for 2 (Melbourne's bid for Heeney), 70, 88 and 89. If Heeney is as good as they say, is that a fair deal?

    If you apply the same to this years draft, there is no way we could get both Mills and Dunkley. With my Swans hat on I think that is unjust. But as AG alluded to, if you take your Swan's hat off for second, I would be furious if Collingwood got all 3 of those player's for potentially picks 18, 18, 36.

    So if we want both, I think Ludwig and/or Matt commented earlier that we may have to trade Some players for a couple of 1st round picks. But we would need to put some serious talent on the table for that to happen. Perhaps Hannebery and Jetta (EXAMPLES ONLY). And there is no way I would trade out that sort of talent to get Dunkley. So maybe Mills is all we will get. And perhaps that's why Dunkley is not publicly committing himself to the Swan's as he knows it is unlikely to happen.

  12. #36
    Or if we think that highly of Dunkley we could go into debt for him and use the following years draft picks for him. This is where our draft department really need their crystal balls.

Page 3 of 95 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO