F/S - Darcy Daniher

[Chookbilly]

Am I correct in my understanding of how the F/S works these days? -

The player has to nominate the club he wishes to play for if he is eligable for more than one club.
Then any club can offer a draft pick for him, but if it's matched by a draft pick from the same round by the team he originally nominated, they get the kid?

Does this mean we are in with a show to get Darcy Daniher?
Is he worth pick 11?

With Essendon in the hunt to get Judd, and willing to give up it's first round draft pick.... we may be in the box seat.

We'll finally have a couple of quality key talls with Brendan Murphy about to don the red and white also!..... Yay team!

[DST]

Suggestions are that 11 is too high for him, somewhere between late teen's and mid twenties is where his value is at.

So I can't see us giving up 11 for him just to beat the Don's to the punch. Especially if Rance from WA is still to be seen around the 11 mark.

DST

[Jeffers1984]

There is a slight chance we can trump Essendon with the 2nd round draft pick if they use it to land Judd.

I still think Darcy will go to Essendon though.

DST. Rance...yes please! From what i heard he is exactly who we need.

Edit. Didn't realise that any team can trump the nominated team...wish they did that with Hawkins last year.

[TheGrimReaper]

I hope we do get him. Because if Essendon decides to go helter skelter for Judd then that would open the door even more for us picking up Daniher. Because Essendon would most likely use their pick 6 for Judd in any trade deal and that would hinder their chances of getting Daniher, providing they get Judd.

Trade week and the National Draft this year, is going to be very interesting that's for sure.

[swansrule100]

my understanding is (prolly wrong) if daniher nominates essendon and we bid our 2nd rnd pick essendon can use 3rd rnd anyway

presuming they traded 1st and 2nd rnd for judd we would have to use first round for daniher

[TheGrimReaper]

I got this from the Wikipedia article about the father son rule. I think if Sydney uses pick 11 then Essendon would have to use their pick 6, I think.

2007 Amendment

In 2007 the AFL established a bidding system to determine which draft pick a club must give up to secure the potential recruit under the Father-son rule. Under the changes, every club in the competition nominates the pick they would use to select the player in question, and the club wishing to use the father/son rule must use its next available pick after the lowest nominal pick by other clubs to secure the player.[1] In the case of the 2006 draft's highest profile Father-Son recruit, Tom Hawkins, the new concept would have likely seen Geelong faced with the option of either using a first, rather than third, round selection or lose him to a rival that would.

[swansrule100]

I got this from the Wikipedia article about the father son rule. I think if Sydney uses pick 11 then Essendon would have to use their pick 6, I think.

2007 Amendment

In 2007 the AFL established a bidding system to determine which draft pick a club must give up to secure the potential recruit under the Father-son rule. Under the changes, every club in the competition nominates the pick they would use to select the player in question, and the club wishing to use the father/son rule must use its next available pick after the lowest nominal pick by other clubs to secure the player.[1] In the case of the 2006 draft's highest profile Father-Son recruit, Tom Hawkins, the new concept would have likely seen Geelong faced with the option of either using a first, rather than third, round selection or lose him to a rival that would.

doesnt that mean if we use 11 theyd use 2nd round, their next available pick unless they trade it for judd :P

[Mike_B]

doesnt that mean if we use 11 theyd use 2nd round, their next available pick unless they trade it for judd :P

That's the way I understand it. But seeing as trades happen before the draft, hypothetically speaking, what would be the rule if they traded a 2nd and 3rd round pick away, so they had say pick 6 and next pick was about 50. If we said we'd use pick 11, does that mean they would still get him with pick 50 if he nominated them as his club of choice??? Surely they are getting double value out of it as they are using their next pick on F/S buit have used higher ones to get a player as well...Do they have something to cover the situation with this sort of anomaly?

[swansrule100]

That's the way I understand it. But seeing as trades happen before the draft, hypothetically speaking, what would be the rule if they traded a 2nd and 3rd round pick away, so they had say pick 6 and next pick was about 50. If we said we'd use pick 11, does that mean they would still get him with pick 50 if he nominated them as his club of choice??? Surely they are getting double value out of it as they are using their next pick on F/S buit have used higher ones to get a player as well...Do they have something to cover the situation with this sort of anomaly?

the only hypothetical i found was this
e.g. Team A bids Pick #7 for a player, Team B has picks #6 and #22 - Team B only has to use Pick #22 to get the player. However, if Team C bids Pick #5, then Team B has to use Pick #6.


which in the scenario u suggest says to me even if we nominate pick 11 and their next pick is 50 they get him

[TheGrimReaper]

It sounds silly and confusing to me.

[Mike_B]

the only hypothetical i found was this
e.g. Team A bids Pick #7 for a player, Team B has picks #6 and #22 - Team B only has to use Pick #22 to get the player. However, if Team C bids Pick #5, then Team B has to use Pick #6.


which in the scenario u suggest says to me even if we nominate pick 11 and their next pick is 50 they get him

Yeah that's the way I see it. So Team A has picks 7, 23, 39, 55. Team B has picks 5, 21, 37, 53.

Team B trades picks 21 and 37 before the draft for a player, leaving them with picks 5 and 53.

Team A puts their offer of pick 7 in for the F/S player, meaning team B uses their next pick after 7 to draft the player, in this case pick 53.

I just don't see this as fair - team B is getting the real value of picks 21 and 37 to trade for a player and where they would have had to use pick 21 for the F/S player, now they only have to use 53.

Maybe they need to have the F/S allocation done BEFORE the trade period begins, wherey team A nominating pick 7 would require team B to set aside pick 21 and not be able to trade it, or otherwise forego the F/S guarantee and have the F/S player go back into the draft like everyone else.

[liz]

The quoted wording doesn't make it clear, but my understanding was that clubs had to use a pick from the next round, which would prevent clubs doing what Mike has suggested. If this isn't the case, there is clearly opportunities for clubs to abuse the rule.

[swansrule100]

The quoted wording doesn't make it clear, but my understanding was that clubs had to use a pick from the next round, which would prevent clubs doing what Mike has suggested. If this isn't the case, there is clearly opportunities for clubs to abuse the rule.

so in the scenario mike suggests the pick 53 is after the third round so wouldnt count?

its an afl rule, it cant be expected to be clear

[Industrial Fan]

The club who is eligible for f/s has to nominate which pick it would like to use, and as I understand for another club to take the selection they have to use a pick from an earlier round. The f/s club can then choose to use an earlier pick if they need to.

Then there is also the question if another club wants to take the f/s selection with an earlier pick and it sits on a round threshold, ie, pick 28 second round selection, and pick 29 is a third round selection...that hugely increases the values of the round the picks are allocated in...

[Bas]

Judd has ruled out the aints because of feuding. Dorks because of whatever and I can't see him opting for the bummers if they don't have a coach.