Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 91

Thread: Trade period review

  1. #25
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I believe that is provisional though, and will be amended once lists are finalised pre-draft.
    Say we want to use 33, 36, 37, 44 , 54, 69 and 72 to draft Mills and Dunks. Does that mean that we need 7 vacancies on our senior list to do so? When do we elevate rookies? I can't see how that works as the situation on the night can see us use anywhere between 2 and 7 picks which leaves 5 picks or players hanging. Wouldn't that mean that we have to make rookie elevations and final draft choices on the fly, so to speak? How can this be done, planning wise, regarding salary cap?

    Something doesn't make sense here. Usually clubs enter the draft know exactly how many picks they will use in both the main and rookie drafts, but this cannot be done with new bidding system.

    If we enter the draft with a senior list of 33 in order to come to the draft with 7 picks, then we use all 7 for 2 picks, we have to make us at least 3 senior spots with rookie elevations, because we wouldn't have any additional draft picks available even to pick players if we wanted to. So that forces us to carry at least 3 rookies over just to be available for elevation on draft night. Then we would have to fill 6 rookie spots 3 days later as well as give senior contracts to 3 elevated rookies. What am I missing here?
    Last edited by Ludwig; 22nd October 2015 at 05:00 PM.

  2. #26
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Say we want to use 33, 36, 37, 44 , 54, 69 and 72 to draft Mills and Dunks. Does that mean that we need 7 vacancies on our senior list vacant to do so? When do we elevate rookies? I can't see how that works as the situation on the night can see us use anywhere between 2 and 7 picks which leaves 5 picks or players hanging. Wouldn't that mean that we have to make rookie elevations and final draft choices on the fly, so to speak? How can this be done, planning wise, regarding salary cap?

    Something doesn't make sense here. Usually clubs enter the draft know exactly how many picks they will use in both the main and rookie drafts, but this cannot be done with new bidding system.
    I don't think it's that difficult. We go into the draft with the maximum number of picks we are allowed to take, which will be 40 minus the number of players we have on our senior list on the last list finalisation date before draft night. If we have 35 players on the list, we will have five picks - 33, 36, 37, 44 and 54. 69 and 72 won't exist (or at least, they won't belong to us) and we can't use any points value they have towards whatever we owe on academy or FS players. If we are short, the deficit will be deducted from our 2016 picks.

    If we enter the draft with 35 players, we can then pick Mills, Dunkley (if he nominates) and elevate Naismith if that is all we wish to do. We are allowed to pass on the last two picks. We can't do less than draft two players and elevate one rookie.

    If we need the points for pick 69, we will need to have no more than 34 on the list on draft night. At this stage we have 38-5+2 = 35. We would have to delist someone. If it were someone we wanted to keep, we could always redraft them if no other club gets in first. Marsh would seem to be the most likely candidate. Or we could just delist them and say goodbye but then we'd need to draft a 4th player or promote someone else from the rookie list.

  3. #27
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    949
    If say Melbourne bid pick 3 on Mills and we match then picks 33, 36, 37 will slide to the back of the draft and pick 44 will be downgraded. It is clear that when 33 goes to the back that 36 stays at 36 and does not get upgraded in points before also being sent to the back of the draft. Once we have taken Mills with the new pick 3 what happens to all the picks that have moved up in position due to us having several picks sent to the back of the draft. Do their points value get upgraded or do they retain their original points value. Brisbane with picks 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 would be getting a bonanza if the points are upgraded. Melbourne with picks 46 and 50 would be moving up in the order by four positions by knocking Sydney's picks to the back of the draft by bidding 3 on Mills knowing Sydney would match. They would also move up many further positions when GWS and Brisbane start bidding on their academy kids. Sydney bidding on Dunkley will probably be not affected because by then I think our pick 44 will be below Melbourne's picks. It does not seem fair to me that Melbourne by making a bid on Mills that will not succeed (whether or not vexatious) will be improving the value of their later draft picks.

    The explanation at the link below does not go into this aspect at all.

    http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL...ing-system.pdf

  4. #28
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I don't think it's that difficult. We go into the draft with the maximum number of picks we are allowed to take, which will be 40 minus the number of players we have on our senior list on the last list finalisation date before draft night. If we have 35 players on the list, we will have five picks - 33, 36, 37, 44 and 54. 69 and 72 won't exist (or at least, they won't belong to us) and we can't use any points value they have towards whatever we owe on academy or FS players. If we are short, the deficit will be deducted from our 2016 picks.
    GWS have traded down to get 10 picks with value, 7 after pick 52. Why would GWS do this unless they intended to use them? But that would mean that GWS would need to have 10 vacancies on their list. I think Ugg mentioned they only have one rookie listed player at this time, so they could be left with a predicament of being forced to delist a slew of former 1st round picks to be replaced with picks in the 60s or not take a bunch of picks to the draft that they feverishly manipulated the system to acquire.

    I don't know how the AFL can keep the previous rule about number of picks taken to the draft and still have multiple picks used to acquire one player. If so, it puts those with academy and FS selections at a serious disadvantage.

    On a further note, the particularities of the new system established some very strange relationships. It was said the intention was to bring equalisation to the draft, but instead has established 2 classes of clubs, those with and those without academies. The academy clubs have become 'insurers' in the draft in that they acquire risk from the other clubs in exchange for a premium. The risk acquired is that of lower draft picks that they exchange for the less risky higher picks. For this they get a premium in the form of additional value points. The system add liquidity to the player exchange market, but at the cost of creating separate classes of market participants. This contrasts with the started intentions of why the bidding system was introduced.

    It wouldn't pay for the academy clubs to acquire this risk if the premiums, lower draft picks, were lost in the process. There are several anomalies in the new system that require clarification. I don't know if the AFL has considered them all. How they will handle these is not public knowledge atm.

  5. #29
    RWOs Black Sheep AnnieH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    At Goodesy's Place
    Posts
    11,332
    Even with restrictions, Kinnear is a genius.
    Sad to lose Jetts and Birdy, but very happy with our trading this season.
    Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
    Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I don't think Ugg can be right about the number of picks we can bring, else the Giants and Lions would be in big trouble. It would make it impossible to plan for the draft since a club that was matching bids on academy and FS players doesn't know how many picks will be used to do so.

    The club website says: The Swans will enter next month�s AFL Draft with picks 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69, 72, 90 and 108.

    I think that is probably correct.
    If Ugg is right then GWS in particular are stuffed and will have a huge points deficit, I can't believe they would have made such a schoolboy error if this is the case...

  7. #31
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnieH View Post
    Even with restrictions, Kinnear is a genius.
    Sad to lose Jetts and Birdy, but very happy with our trading this season.
    So it's official that we've done well this trade if we've done well by Annie's measure!

    Interesting debate about number of selections allowed. I'm figuring that there must have been a rule change to allow for the fact that the AFL expect academy and F/S to be paid for with multiple picks.

    Also hadn't thought about vexatious bidding in order to drag your own later draft picks up the order. Not sure the VFL will do it but they should be eyeballing all the non academy and F/S clubs that have first round picks to make it clear that vexatious bidding won't be tolerated. Still think Melbourne at pick 3 is a worry as the VFL's own draft guru Callum Twomey keeps ranking Mills at 3 :-(

    Only 32 daze until the exciting ND, can't wait although we will know who we are getting. Still better than three years ago when we called out Towers with our first pick and I didn't even know who he was, that's how far left field he was.

  8. #32
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    If Ugg is right then GWS in particular are stuffed and will have a huge points deficit, I can't believe they would have made such a schoolboy error if this is the case...
    It looks like nobody at the VFL has thought this through. Majestic stuff up.

    It looks as though the academy clubs are actually being penalised for top draft picks because it is in the interests of the other clubs to up bid them. This is like playing Poker with a stacked deck.
    We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

  9. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottee View Post
    It looks like nobody at the VFL has thought this through. Majestic stuff up.

    It looks as though the academy clubs are actually being penalised for top draft picks because it is in the interests of the other clubs to up bid them. This is like playing Poker with a stacked deck.
    I cannot believe GWS or the Lions wouldn't have thought this through and have gotten signoff re this. We'll be OK, might mean de-listing and re-drafting Harry but thee others would be royally rooted

  10. #34
    not only.........

    there would have been a massive amount of examples sent thru to the AFL clubs on the possible, probables, ifs and maybes !
    "be tough, only when it gets tough"


  11. #35
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    834
    still no answer to my earlier post, how do you calculate 235 extra points what am I missing

  12. #36
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    15,929
    Quote Originally Posted by lwjoyner View Post
    Uggg that's what my son says. Don't understand it but there must be something in the rules that says you can only have the picks if you have spaces. By the way can some one explain how we are 235 points in front. I must be missing something
    pick 14 1161
    pick 33 563
    pick 53 233 and pick 71 29 a total of 1986. By my calc the new picks give us 2198 a differenc of 212.
    After the free agent compo picks for Leuenberger and Suckling we ended up with picks 54 and 72

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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