Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 17 of 17

Thread: AFL changes bidding/points rule

  1. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Maybe I don't fully understand the change the AFL has made, but I have reread it and it comes out the same to me. I think there is room to maneuver with the variable list sizes of 38 to 40. It is also not that complicated to work through 1 desired academy selection, such as what we've had with Mills and Heeney. But it becomes quite complex if you are in the situation GWS find themselves, having 5 highly rated academy players and lots of possible listed player movements. It must be a nightmare trying to manage their situation this year.

    Perhaps the AFL intended to have GWS lose player value this year because they realise that they went overboard on their concessions. As I said in my previous post, I think the Queensland clubs will be the ones to suffer most from this change in the long run, as out of state players simply don't want to go there. They don't need to have things become even more difficult for them. Brisbane has lost a huge amount of draft value in recent times due to player movements.

    One good strategy to counter the change, looking long term, is to go light on draft picks in years with good academy players and load up for the following year, carry a deficit into the next year and pay for it then when the exact value point cost is known. Then you can get full value for the discount. It's easier to pay for picks when you already know the value point cost as opposed to trying to anticipate where they will be bid for.

    On a more specific matter to this draft, I think we should try to exploit the GWS situation by targeting Jeremy Finlayson, as the Giants may be looking to open list places so they can carry more value points to the draft to pay for their high academy picks. I'm sure there is a lot I haven't thought about and will look forward to the GWS reaction and other scenarios as the this rule change is digested.
    To be fair Ludwig it is rather confusing.

    I think the overall strategy for Northern Clubs is that when they have an academy pick that is likely a first rounder that they will trade back their first rounder and absorb the points from later picks, that way they don't "lose points". And I think that suits Melbourne clubs as they get to trade up to a second first rounder. If they make academy clubs keep a first round pick that makes the strategy harder but still possible and any academy picks that go to the second round and beyond have a fixed discount of 197 points so there is no issue there.

    The way that the system is designed is that once GWS fall into a normal pattern that most academy clubs will be able to draft at most one gun priority unless they wish to go into deficit or trade a gun layer for a first round pick. We kind of showed that last year, after Mills went we pretty much had speculative picks. Not that he wasn't worth it.

    The key is that the discount is not lost and I think the AFL have been wise in tying it into to the F/S system as it makes it harder to unravel as Melbourne clubs do mine this system quite well, especially Collingwood.

    I suspect there will be no real adverse reaction as the system is still pretty much intact. The next battleground is bound to be the GWS zone and that's a separate argument imo but the danger is that they'll use it to attack the entire academy system.

    Agree re Finlayson. This and 2017 be the final years GWS will be able to exploit this system fully as their expanded list size gets trimmed back to the standard list size in 2018.

  2. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    If GWS gave to release top end talent to clear their list a little or accomodate players who want out (for opportunities or to return home), can they be traded for future high end draft picks that can be stockpiled for use in securing future academy players?
    Absolutely but they could equally just draft first rounders. With the depth of talent they have they'll be able to do that for a few years yet I'd say.

    This year they have three first round picks and two second rounders. If they get pick in the 20s for C-Mac they should be able to comfortable afford all their kids. Then they probably get a future first rounders for Marchbank, WHE and Steele. Plus whatever they get for Lobb next year if he wants out. It will tail off eventually but not for a few years

  3. #15
    The changes relate to the academy selections - do they also apply to the father son selections - I have found no reference to father/sons in the commentary.

  4. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    For crying out loud had anyone here actually read the article?

    There's absolutely no reason for the hysterics on here. The only thing that has been banned is phantom bids and rightly so.
    The article does cover the fact that only a minor tweak has been implemented this year.

    However the main issues, and hence the hysterics, are:

    1) the article's title, which reflects the sentiment of most media reporting of the northern clubs trading down picks, opines that THE 'loophole' still exists. This is furthered by quotes from a prominent VIC club criticising that practice (as opposed to the 'phantom pick' issue, which hadn't really been reported as a/the concern of any clubs).

    This perpetuates the negative attitude towards being able to trade down, and that northern clubs are still being allowed to exploit the supposed loophole.

    2) the bigger concern is that there is still an agenda by certain clubs to have any action of the northern clubs that can be linked to their academies to be restricted - so media reporting saying loopholes still remain, 'many clubs are still concerned' etc etc just maintain the momentum for all the lobbying for changes to be made in the future.

    You're right, the change that has been made this year isn't of concern. Nor has it really been a problem either though - hasn't what they've now restricted only been utilised it by 1 club for 1 pick in 1 year?

    We've seen the level of fortitude the AFL has in standing up to that sort of public lobbying by VIC clubs - hence the valid concerns of what may still happen - not what they've changed this year.

  5. #17
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    It is seriously deceptive to call the trading of picks a loophole, as if it were something devised by the academy clubs to exploit the rest of the league. In fact, it was the original design of the the value points system that was skewed in a such a way as to be as costly as possible to the Swans to acquire Callum Mills. The other side of this coin is the overvaluing of 3rd and 4th round picks which made it easier for academy clubs to manage the uncertainties of draft night by trading down. The AFL could have designed a scale that was less skewed this manner. The clubs that wanted this system got their way and we paid heavily for Mills compared to the previous system, justly or not, but now they don't like the aftermath of their handiwork.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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