If we delist a player on a contract what does that do to our cap?
If we delist a player on a contract what does that do to our cap?
Derrickx and AJ are both contracted next year, they won't be getting delisted.
Only real candidates for that would be Marsh and Nankervis
If you just want to free up a list spot prior to the draft so that it is available to be filled on draft night, there's nothing to stop a club delisting a contracted player. The club could, for example, delist Tom D and then redraft him on draft night. The risk is that someone else gets in first, but that is probably unlikely with Derickx. And if you have no expectation of another club getting in first, you just re-pick them with a rubbish pick at the end of the draft. I am not predicting the club will do so, or suggesting they should. But it's a possibility. And if another club were to step in and draft them first, there wouldn't be a salary cap impact. You only have to count a delisted player's contracted amounts in the salary cap to the extent they don't have an equivalent contract the following year with another club.
The version you are looking at was the first draft put out for feedback from the clubs in January this year. I think they fixed the issue you have identified in the final put out in May - see the attached.Originally Posted by rb4x
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL...ing-system.pdf
I am not entirely sure that new version makes things much clearer. In terms of picks moving to the end of the draft, how are those picks ordered? In the order of when they are shuffled to the back? Say Melbourne decide they want to make both Sydney and GWS pay for their most highly rated academy players by bidding for both at pick 3 (and then 4). Say they bid for Mills first and Sydney matches. A whole heap of Sydney picks move to the back of the draft. Then Melbourne bids for Hopper with pick 4 and the same thing happens to GWS's next few picks. Which of those then come first at the end of the draft? Sydney's because they were bumped to the back first? If there are multiple picks bumped to the back, do all of Sydney's come before all of GWS' or are they alternated?
I realise those picks at the back end aren't worth much and so it probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference. In Sydney's case, we will probably pass on most of them if we go in with a shorter list again (and with Naismith's elevation needing just any pick). But it is one minor element that I haven't seen explained anywhere.
Of course, in the above scenario, both clubs would rather than other club was bumped first, because the cost of matching pick 4 is cheaper than the cost of matching pick 3. This shows the other clubs have the chance to be somewhat arbitrary in order where they wish to bid for multiple academy players.
I think the picks are reordered in reverse ladder position.
Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.
Makes sense.
The fact that in the past the number of draft picks taken to the table on draft night equaled the number of places open on the primary list seems to be more informational than a rule. If you went into the draft with 35 listed players you could take 100 picks to the draft, but you still could only use 5. The limitation was due to the maximum list size. Things have changed this year since the one pick for one player rule has changed.
I suggested delisting Derickx and Johnson with the implied intent that we would redraft them. We should only be so lucky that someone would take Derickx off our hands. If we had to give Bird up for free, we probably would have to through in a first round draft pick as a sweetener for someone to take Tom. Clubs have been respectful to the redrafting injured players in the past, so doubt that anyone would dislodge AJ from the Swans and pick up his medical bills.
It's only due to the insanity of some of the past AFL rulings that Ugg1 is a possibility, but I still expect Ugg2 to be the case.
No. The May version still has the back of draft variously at 88, 90 and 93. Cannot see how they can do that under either scenario.
I prefer the Melicanator because it describes the way he plays.
We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!
Unfair was probably not the right description but it is an anomaly that they have exploited - they have huge list space via their extended list that one suspects they are not going to fill. As a result they can trade for a large number of later picks that suddenly become more than what they were worth on a fairly large scale. When they have the same list issues as us they won't have that capacity.
In any event, it all points to a delisting (Marsh) that takes us our list to 34 that gives us the six draft slots with points for us to use. We'll take Sam as an upgrade and Mills and Dunkley and assuming we don't have enough points left for a meaningful trade pick I suspect we'll either re-draft Harry or someone else in the PSD or we'll take an extra academy kid.
I do think whatever the outcome is, it proves that the academy bidding system is very fair to us. The 197 discount cap for second rounders plus the fact that later draft picks increase in value means we have been largely unaffected by this system and we are drafting a top 5 kid and a top 25 after finishing 15th - the only things we lose as opposed to last year is our third rounder. It's a fair return for effort in my book. If we were to be able to do that every year it would be a significant advantage.
Sorry, I misread the two versions earlier. But anyway, after about six attempts at working through the scenarios they have provided, I think what the AFL is saying is right. You need to put in all the bids/outcomes by all the clubs in chronological order as shown in the examples, with picks moving up and down at each stage. I think the end result for the Swans would have been as they show.
But there seems to me to be an anomaly (not one we are going to complain about though). I would have thought that if, for example, we had had to use picks 18, 37, 38 and part of 57 to draft Heeney, then we would have extinguished our highest value pick (18) and the other three would have moved backwards. However the scenario shows all four picks moving backwards. That is, we lose value but we don't actually lose a pick.
If I've read that correctly it doesn't make sense to me. Under the old rule we would have matched with our highest pick (18) and then lost that pick.
Am I reading this correctly?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks