It's also likely that GWS may have an informal 'reverse out' option with who they traded picks for. And if they can get the 2x first round picks they other party gives reserves the trade with some discount (maybe a next years pick) and so GWs can get green and a 2nd rounder.
Stranger things have happened.
You make a strong point re: good young players who will struggle to get a game in the GWS midfield however the problem I have with your comment is that it won't be us who will benefit from it, it will be the strong VIC clubs and the S.A. clubs (as usual) as those two you mentioned at the end will go back home, not to us.Originally Posted by Ralph Dawg
I say have a crack at Green if we get the chance and pray that they want someone else with pick 6!
Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk
Ludwig pointed out I missed Taranto in my original list - he's going to be a gun, if he isn't one already!
You're correct in saying that they are most likely to head back to Melbourne. But I wonder if it's potentially a case of us actually not considering Giants for some unspecified reason? Here are players, who have lived in Sydney for at least a couple of years, potentially settled and liking life in the harbour city. If we actually sounded out guys like Hately, Caldwell, Shipley or Green, perhaps we could get them. Maybe we have and the lure of Melbourne is too strong but I'd hope we would at least have a crack.
I too would love to grab a player or two and you'd have to think we'd be looking at everyone. No doubt, the pull of going back home once a Vic player on GWS's books (gains some currency) is there. We see that particular trade every year. Perhaps the issue lies with GWS and not with our recruiting department? If you were GWS, would you really want your cross town rivals to be getting better at your expense? They have plenty of other suitors lined up to woo their conveyor belt of talent gifted to them by the AFL.
Jai has the ability but he's got to be one of the skinniest players I've ever seen. He looks like he'd only put on 5kgs after spending a year in the gym and being on a protein diet.
Those players won't be coming to us. They'll be going to the Vic clubs as usual.
Southern clubs would already be talking to those players ready to prise them out of GWS next trade period. Remember that to their GF midfield GWS will be adding Cogs & Ward as well.
GWS did not burn points trading up to pick 6 just to grab yet another potential go home through lack of senior opportunities midfielder, it is fairly clear that their target before Green is ruckman Jackson or KPD McAsey, plus Green of course matching with later picks.
If their wanted target is Jackson then the late interest by Melbourne in him and the possibility we may consider it has thrown a spanner in GWS trading up. The only way they can be assured of getting their target is to get pick 3 off Melbourne for who ever it is they want then matching almost immediately for Green.
Problem GWS now have in getting pick 3 is that pick 6 will become pick 7 and adding next years first into the deal is not that enticing as another high finish and bid matching early could see the GWS first in the early 20s. GWS may have been a bit too too clever this time if Melbourne hold onto pick 3.
They don't just lose the points difference, the pick slides back to match the points value. They do get pick 52 as "change" as specified by the bidding system guide provided by the league found on page 8 here - https://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AF...ing-system.pdf
"In order to pay for the player, the nominating Club’s next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required."
Here's an explainer from Fox Sports last year using Blakey as an example - AFL draft, academy bidding, father-son bidding, full explanation of the draft value index and how matching a bid words | Fox Sports
LET’S say Port Adelaide bid on Sydney Swans academy prospect Nick Blakey at Pick 5 (1878 points)
— IN order to snare him, the Swans now have to match the Power’s bid using the draft picks they already hold.
- FIRST, we must take away the 20 per cent discount (which is automatically given to clubs for bids inside the first round) that would be given to the Swans, meaning they now have to find 1503 points to secure Blakey.
— THE SWANS’ first three selections, which are Pick 26 (729), Pick 33 (563) and Pick 38 (465), covers the Power’s bid.
— However, as the value of those three picks adds up to 1757, they have 254 points left over. This means the Swans’ Pick 38 would slide back to Pick 52 in the draft.
— NOW Nick Blakey is officially selected by the Swans at Pick 5, but the Swans have lost their first two picks (Pick 26 and Pick 33).
— THE Power select again at Pick 6 and the predetermined draft order continues from there.
My understanding is that the first pick used disappears (as it has been used to select the bid upon player). However, if a second or third pick is required to match the points value, those picks don't disappear but are moved backwards - to the end of the draft if their points value has been exhausted, or to a later spot if there is a points residual.
Your example doesn't illustrate this as it involves the use of more than one pick to match the bid.
Ok so you're saying only if it involves multiple picks then they get that point value pick returned?
Hmm, I'll do some digging and see if that can be confirmed.
Ok, so as with everything with the AFL, this just gets more confusing the further down the rabbit hole you dive.
Going back to that AFL PDF, there are three examples where a player is bid on and the bid is matched with a single pick. Darcy Moore on page 10, Billy Stretch on page 12, and Zaine Cordy on page 14. So naturally 1 of those examples confirms what you're saying, and 2 of them confirm what I'm saying. Moore and Stretch seem to be the most relevant examples, and in those scenarios, Collingwood doesn't get the remaining points as a pick, but Melbourne does. So maybe it is a first round thing?
However, because the AFL states that "In order to pay for the player, the nominating Club’s next available pick move backwards in the draft order to the value of the points required." there is no reference to the round that the bid is made in.
Bottom line, I will do even more digging and come back with what I can find.
And I found even more stuff from the AFL that just makes it even more confusing. At this point Liz, I would say you and Bloodspirit could be right, but I could be right as well and I am a bit confused at my work desk right now as a result.
So here is an update on the PDF from my previous post - https://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AF...emfeedback.pdf
In this case it has a different Billy Stretch scenario, no Darcy Moore scenario, but does have an Ayce Cordy scenario from 2008 that would suggest that a single pick does move back to later in the draft. This is on page 7.
I also found this draft nomination booklet from the AFL, which is an interesting read, https://nabafldraftnom.com.au/images...oklet_mens.pdf but only says this about matching academy players.
"Academy Players Rule
On Thursday, 31 October 2019, by 2pm eligible
clubs must lodge with the AFL a list of draft eligible Academy Players it wishes to consider
for inclusion on its Primary List or Rookie List.
At the National Draft meeting in conjunction
with Father-Son bidding nominations, each
Club may “bid” for the player.
If matched by the Academy Club, the
Academy Club will forfeit one or more
subsequent selections, to the value of
the points required to match the bid. If the
Academy Club declines to match the bid, the
club with the successful bid uses the selection to
secure the player."
If you find anything, please let me know, as I'd be very interested to get to the bottom of it. But at the moment I can't do more google searches for AFL Draft processes on my work computer........
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks