IF this is what the position is (now some doubt, see Ugg's latest post) then this would be what an economist would say is part of paying 'market price' for the academy players for whom other clubs have bid.Originally Posted by Ludwig
IF this is what the position is (now some doubt, see Ugg's latest post) then this would be what an economist would say is part of paying 'market price' for the academy players for whom other clubs have bid.
But the academy clubs have benefits that other clubs don't have. Were it not for the academy, the only way we'd have a chance of getting our ends on top end talent like Mills is if we'd traded out a very good player. Even then it might not have been possible to prise a top 5 pick out of the hands of the club that held it without giving up overs. The bidding system is designed to make the draft price the northern clubs pay for their academy talent closer to fair value. If we finish near the top, don't want to trade a good player out, yet want a good player, it makes sense that we have to take the rest of our selections at the very back end of the draft. The impact on Sydney won't be severe because the club seems happy to have a shorter senior list, and because we seem to have a steady flow of players coming through from the rookie list who don't need high draft picks if they are to be added to the senior list.
I don't think so. I don't think you can ever draft more players onto the list than the maximum list size. If a club plans to delist, they can do so before the draft. They can delist later, and can then fill those spots in the PSD or by signing up free agents.
I hope someone from the club is across these issues, I'd be absolutely astounded if this hasn't been gone through with a fine tooth comb
All of this takes us back to the original discussion of what is a fair price to pay for academy players given the investment made in the academies as well a re-balancing the other negative factors, like go home, that the academies were intended to rectify. In all of the discussions that took place on this forum this peculiarity was never brought up, as no one thought about it. If you run through some extreme situations in a thought experiment of sorts, especially if a club is carrying 40 primary listed players, not 38, it can turn into a real nightmare. The academy clubs can be shackled so much that it would exceed any benefit derived from having an academy. In fact, to make some leeway to cover such situations the academy clubs will be virtually forced to permanently carry a primary list of 38. This alone is a restriction that other clubs don't have.
If the AFL came out with a ruling that clubs with academies will be limited to a primary list of 38, while other clubs could continue to carry up to 40, this forum would blow so high it would take out Big Footy with it.
I just hope that ugg is right in his last comment and sense prevails.
I'm not being argumentative here just for the sake of it but I just aren't getting what the issue is.
If that was the case of not having the spare couple of spots on our list, which gives us a bit of flexibility in this scenario then we would simply trade to our points limit and if wanted to go into overdraft then we'd just draft from back of the pack and cop any penalty points the next year.
On a practical level, even if we did run with a list of 40 we'd still get some benefit from the draft upgrades because as a rule we won't utilise all the list spots with draftees as we'll upgrade rookie and go to the PSD for a couple of players more often than not.
The only thing that excluding the non available picks does is prevent a trading strategy like GWS' resulting in an unfair accumulation of additional points. For this draft it wasn't an issue because of their extended list but if they were running with a list of 40 you can bet they have traded for fewer picks that were higher up the order.
I really think we are looking for a major disadvantage to us that just isn't there. And what this draft period has shown is that whatever we trade for, if we can get our picks bunched in the 40s then we get a major uplift in points provided we are behind the picks that get utilised by other academies. I think you'll see some real competition between the different academies. Or maybe we'll loosely work together. To me it is too much of a co-incidence our picks 33,36 and 37 are directly ahead of Brisbane's cluster of picks given that it almost certain our priority pick will go before theirs. If their picks we in the early 30s they'd get no benefit at all but we will effectively give then an extra 271 points which gives them a huge buffer in the event of phantom bids
Treloar was traded for around the net value of a #2 pick, the same as what Heeney was bid for. They are probably worth around the same value in reality as well. I think 1 Heeney is worth 1 Treloar. Why should anyone bother running an academy and be made to jump through hoops when you can get the same result by just trading? You can pay market value even if you don't have an academy. If you are willing to give away 2 first round picks you can get a Treloar or a Heeney. You also have the ability to pick off unhappy players like Aish at a discount.
It's barely a breakeven situation running an academy for a destination club like the Swans. The Giants are in a honeymoon period that's hard to assess and the Queensland clubs are definitely net losers when you take the system as a whole.
There are still some uncertainties left to clear up. We will see how things pan out in the end, but whatever happens on draft night, we will need to have a hard fresh look at the academy and our strategy going forward.
I think you and all the others that have argued your side have been fair and thoughtful. I thought the new bidding system was targeted to make us pay for Mills and Dunkley. Aside from this, let's say that the bidding system as it stands is fair in that it gives us access to players that we might not normally have access to and gives us a market discount to acquire those players. This compensates for the cost of running the academy, the small pool of local players and a few other factors.
I feel that if space has to be cleared on our primary list to accommodate the value points needed to acquire those players, much of the benefit is offset. The academy clubs will have additional list management considerations above and beyond that of other clubs. We are already paying a high enough price for the top academy players and are open to vexatious bidding as well. But if we need to delist or trade players out just to accumulate points in multiple picks to actually get those players, it puts an additional burden on us that wasn't considered in the design of the value points system. It was never a point that was discussed anywhere, as far as I know.
I don't know why you say that the GWS accumulation of late picks is an unfair accumulation. They were traded in the open market. It could equally be said that those who traded with them received an unfair higher draft pick. If Ugg1 is true, then GWS would be forced to delist a player for every net additional pick they acquire. If Ugg2 is true, then they won't. My position is that Ugg2 is fair and Ugg1 is not.
The way our situation stands now, assuming Ugg1: We have a net reduction of 3 from our primary list and one spot is committed to the Naismith elevation. If we had a list of 40, we would have to delist 4 senior players to use all our draft picks with value. This is not to draft additional players, but simply use our picks to acquire players we need points for due to a system imposed by the AFL. Even with a 38 primary list, we still need to delist 2 additional players. So who will they be? And more to the point should we be forced to choose between losing draft picks, losing Academy or FS players and listed players just to satisfy a rule that doesn't take into account that multiple picks will have to be used to acquire a single player, something new to this year's draft system?
Under the Ugg1 scenario, we only have to free up one space if we wish to take 6 picks into the draft. Naismith isn't on the senior list yet. He will be taken at the draft but with the last pick we use, so it doesn't matter how late it is.
I am still left wondering how the bidding system works after studying the AFL explanation at the link below.
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL...emfeedback.pdf
In the example for Heeney picks 18,37 1nd 38 all go to the back of the draft at pick 88 and then obviously get moved up. There were 87 picks in the 2014 draft. We then see Steele with pick 23 moved to the back of the draft but to pick 90???. Stretch has pick 38 moved back to pick 71 OK. Then we have Hiscox with picks 62 and 69 moved to the back of the draft at pick 93. Pick 62 is great as it shows Heeney's downgraded pick 84 has now moved up to 62 by Steele and Stretch having picks moved below 64. Understand that if picks are scaled up on the fly. What I don't understand is how the back of the draft has goner from 88 to 90 to 93 if picks are scaled up. To me it looks like the AFL when they put out this were not sure if picks were upscaled or not. Whichever way I look at it it does not make sense as Heeney had three picks going to the back of the draft so if they were not upscaled then Steele's pick 23 should have gone to 91 and the back of the draft for Hiscox should have started at 92. An explanation that sows further confusion and leaves it open for the AFL to make whatever clarification ruling they like.
I was calculating for taking all 7 value picks into the draft. Even though Naismith is not on the list, I think we need to take a pick to the draft for him to be elevated, even though that pick will be one that moves to the end of the draft.
We can always delist Tom Derickx for one. And perhaps Alex Johnson could be the other.
Last edited by Ludwig; 24th October 2015 at 04:31 PM.
Delist AJ after just signing him??
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks