2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

[Auntie.Gerald]

Matt80 wouldnt it be fair that we dont need to trade anyone if we are happy with the list we have

I am very comfortable with the emerging players and the addition of at least Mills is a perfect compliment

I think Nanny and Sam can take over from Pyke

I think X, Davis, Alir, Reid etc can handle the KPP roles by 2016

[Flying South]

Your points are on target.

I don't have a problem with the general notion of the new system either. But as you say, the way the value curve is skewed and the timing is grossly unfair and clearly aimed at hurting the Swans just in the year when we happen to have 2 prized players available under the academy and FS systems.

The Swans and the other northern clubs made investments in the academy system based on certain set of rules. If the AFL want to change the rules, they should allow for a transition period to permit these clubs to phase out or transfer operations over to the AFL. Then the AFL can implement whatever bidding system it wants.

Perhaps the AFL should concurrently implement a system whereby a player who is not a free agent and wants to 'go home', like Jarrad Polec, the club getting Polec would be required to turn over to the club losing Polec an equivalent number of points for that draft pick used to acquire him. In such a case Port Adelaide would have to give Brisbane the value of pick number 5.

Excellent points and couldn't agree more. I think we need a fairer system but it either should be introduced in 2 years or phased in over 2 years. Perhaps we get a 50% reduction this year, a 35% reduction next year and the 25% reduction after that. Similar could to F/S. I also think it should be introduced in a year when the draft is completely uncompromised. No compensation picks, priority picks, or whatever picks they seem to hand out these days. If they want a fairer system, then it should be fair across the board.

A lot of people have been saying that last year and this year is an anomaly, fluke or one in eight over a 20 year period. I am not so sure about this. It takes a while for these programs to take off and I think the Academy is just starting to warm up. Success breeds success. And the success of Heeney, Mills & co is only going to spur more elite juniors footballers of any code to join up. I can see several academy players being drafted every year with a player going top 10 at least every two years.

[The Big Cat]

I think we should go hard on Mills and Dunkley, but we can't hopelessly erode the 2016 draft to the point where our three compulsory draft selections are in the 70s

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but won't Mills and Dunkley count as two of our compulsory three draftees?

[Doctor]

Some excellent comments on the proposed system so far folks. Well done. I agree with quite a few comments along the way. I'll leave the Eddie bashing for now as the thread seems more devoted to the merits (or otherwise) of the system so I'll do my bit to keep it that way. Take it as read though that I still think he's a Richard Cranium.
- the suggestion of 25% and 35% rather than what's proposed seems more reasonable
- the feeling that this is a knee jerk reaction to us happening to have two guns plus a f/s within two years. We have no way of knowing whether or not any of these kids will mature into good footy players mind you. Sometimes clubs get a decent run with picks for a year or two so I think this seems like panic stations
- the fact that this overlooks the fact that the Academies are primarily about developing the talent base of footy players in NSW and Qld. This is to benefit all clubs at AFL level but also the local leagues in those states and the junior footy clubs that these kids play for. The access to coaching that Academy kids receive is outstanding, but it merely allows our boys to get access to the same level of coaching that Victorian kids take for granted.
- Ugg's point about the drop off rate of points being very high is also well made. On the face of it, it seems a deliberate attempt to hurt us for Mills & Heeney
- does this mean that clubs can play silly buggers at the draft. Let's say that they all know we want Mills but he's genuinely rated as a late first round pick. What's to stop another club making a cheeky bid for him at pick 4 to force us to match it and burn our points? We could call their bluff and let him through but that hurts our strategy too.
- I do fear for what it means for the academies in future years. There are kids at U11 level who have just started and have parents who will now be wondering what they will be looking at in 5/6 years. I'm a parent of a boy in the U16s and it certainly makes me wonder what we'll (as an age group - not just my son) be looking at in a couple of years, especially if the Swans owe points because they've had to use them on Mills and Dunkley.

I would hope that we align ourselves with GWS, Brisbane and GC and put a very clear position forward on this.

[mcs]

I agree with you and Ludwig on these points. A change in the Academy bidding system is a fair thing to consider (and the F/S system even more so) but the young players already in the Academies should be available under the current bidding rules for the next 2 to 3 years to reflect the investment made by the clubs under the expectation that the current rules would apply. One report suggests that "THE SYDNEY Swans did land Isaac Heeney for a steal in 2014." Given the $millions invested into the Academy by the Swans over the period that Heeney was there, he is hardly a "steal".

I am also cynical about the AFL's neat timing of getting the Swans to agree to an alleged 'softening' of the trade ban, which is still a nonsensical punishment on the Swans, and then immediately following up by sending out this proposed change to the Academy bidding system. Does anyone think they didn't have this proposal ready to go before the announcement on the trade ban?

As I said on the trade ban thread, I believe the AFL are picking off the Swans an issue at a time. The Swans acceptance of the trade ban has not given them any clout on the Academy.

How can he already be 'a steal' when he hasn't played a game for the club yet. For all we know he might be a dud at the AFL level, or get a terrible run of injuries that means he never lives up to his potential. A good junior player so many times has been shown to not necessarily to equal a good AFL player. Its like it is an absolute given he will be a superstar (Not that I'm doubting his ability at all - everything we've all seen so far points to him being a fine player).

[rojo]

So good to see Lions CEO Greg Swan response that if the new system goes ahead (as proposed), the Lions would consider handling control of their Academy back the the AFL.

[mcs]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but won't Mills and Dunkley count as two of our compulsory three draftees?

That's in 2015 - the reference to compulsory draftees is for 2016 (I.e. we would have to 'borrow points' per say from 2016 to pay for our 2015 draftees).

[Ludwig]

As I said on the trade ban thread, I believe the AFL are picking off the Swans an issue at a time. The Swans acceptance of the trade ban has not given them any clout on the Academy.

You will probably turn out to be right on this call, but I hope you're not. I shouldn't be surprised by the AFL (Eddie McGuire) proposal now that Darcy Moore has been drafted. The question remains what the response will be from the Swans and the other northern clubs.

Unless there are some substantial changes to the proposal, it is hard to see us getting both Mills and Dunks this year. There are some aspects of the new system worth noting:

• There will be a disincentive for clubs to trade draft picks to the Swans or other academy clubs that have multiple high value draftees as they could be used to get to claim these players at a discount, and otherwise the player might be forced into an open draft, which would benefit the other clubs.
• As noted by Matt80, if we use all our higher picks from this and next year's draft to land both Mill and Dunkley, then we might be forced to use 2 very low draft picks next year (to meet the 2 pick minimum) to add lower quality players to the senior list, perhaps players that would otherwise be chosen as rookies. We could use the 3rd required pick with a rookie upgrade. There also may be an academy player that still has 2 seasons to go before being draft-eligible who just might turn out to be a player worthy of a first round pick, but we simply would not have any value points to acquire that player.
• Although it may seem odd at first, but if we anticipate that Mills will be bid at pick 1, 2 or 3 and Dunkley closer to 10, it might be better to let Mills go and take Dunkley. Mills would land at a club like the Saints. After 2 years he could get homesick and ask to be traded to the Swans, perhaps for our standard 1st round pick, thus cheaper than drafting him under this system.
• Mills could also pull a 'Chad Wingard' and tell clubs at interview time that he would really prefer to play for the Swans and will look to get there in due course. Turn the tables on the Melbourne clubs with the go home factor. I think all the northern clubs should employ every disincentive possible to keep out of state clubs from bidding on local talent.
• It would probably be viewed as draft tampering, but there are some ways the northern clubs could world together (some might say conspire) to assist each other in retaining their academy players. These include phantom bidding to generate value points for the other party (noted in an earlier post), and establishing a kind of value points bank using 'phantom trades' that could be used to 'borrow' picks (value points) from clubs that don't have high value players in the current draft to be paid back when the reverse is true.

If you took the proposed value table and scaled it from 2000 points at pick 1 instead 3000, down to 1025 at pick 17, it wouldn't seem so unbalanced. The biggest problem with the system is that it is so costly, in terms of draft picks, to retain a top rated academy player that a club may have invested years in training and support. For example, if Mills turns out to be the best player in the draft and becomes the number 1 pick, I think it is more than fair enough for the Swans to pay their first 2 draft picks for him, but to have to use the first 3 picks and cut into next year's draft as well is really onerous.

[jono2707]

How much ($$$'s) is the AFL offering as compensation to any club who loses access to an academy player under this proposed new system?

[Matt80]

You will probably turn out to be right on this call, but I hope you're not. I shouldn't be surprised by the AFL (Eddie McGuire) proposal now that Darcy Moore has been drafted. The question remains what the response will be from the Swans and the other northern clubs.

Unless there are some substantial changes to the proposal, it is hard to see us getting both Mills and Dunks this year. There are some aspects of the new system worth noting:

• There will be a disincentive for clubs to trade draft picks to the Swans or other academy clubs that have multiple high value draftees as they could be used to get to claim these players at a discount, and otherwise the player might be forced into an open draft, which would benefit the other clubs.
• As noted by Matt80, if we use all our higher picks from this and next year's draft to land both Mill and Dunkley, then we might be forced to use 2 very low draft picks next year (to meet the 2 pick minimum) to add lower quality players to the senior list, perhaps players that would otherwise be chosen as rookies. We could use the 3rd required pick with a rookie upgrade. There also may be an academy player that still has 2 seasons to go before being draft-eligible who just might turn out to be a player worthy of a first round pick, but we simply would not have any value points to acquire that player.
• Although it may seem odd at first, but if we anticipate that Mills will be bid at pick 1, 2 or 3 and Dunkley closer to 10, it might be better to let Mills go and take Dunkley. Mills would land at a club like the Saints. After 2 years he could get homesick and ask to be traded to the Swans, perhaps for our standard 1st round pick, thus cheaper than drafting him under this system.
• Mills could also pull a 'Chad Wingard' and tell clubs at interview time that he would really prefer to play for the Swans and will look to get there in due course. Turn the tables on the Melbourne clubs with the go home factor. I think all the northern clubs should employ every disincentive possible to keep out of state clubs from bidding on local talent.
• It would probably be viewed as draft tampering, but there are some ways the northern clubs could world together (some might say conspire) to assist each other in retaining their academy players. These include phantom bidding to generate value points for the other party (noted in an earlier post), and establishing a kind of value points bank using 'phantom trades' that could be used to 'borrow' picks (value points) from clubs that don't have high value players in the current draft to be paid back when the reverse is true.

If you took the proposed value table and scaled it from 2000 points at pick 1 instead 3000, down to 1025 at pick 17, it wouldn't seem so unbalanced. The biggest problem with the system is that it is so costly, in terms of draft picks, to retain a top rated academy player that a club may have invested years in training and support. For example, if Mills turns out to be the best player in the draft and becomes the number 1 pick, I think it is more than fair enough for the Swans to pay their first 2 draft picks for him, but to have to use the first 3 picks and cut into next year's draft as well is really onerous.

What a great post. Brilliant Ludwig!

I quite like the idea of Mills doing a Chad Wingard. Having said that I would imagine if the Swans let him go he would be very disillusioned with the Swans and may not want to come back.

I think the Swans should go for Mills and Dunkley). We have not had a high pick since pick 6 (Garry Rohan) and we have a unique opportunity to get two brilliant prospects at a significant discount.

We will have to trade out some players to make up the points. It will depend on who wants to leave at the end of 2015. I would be open to great bids on Bird, Smith, Jetta, and Hannas. Maybe open to bids on Towers if he can play enough senior football to increase his trade value.

[annew]

So good to see Lions CEO Greg Swan response that if the new system goes ahead (as proposed), the Lions would consider handling control of their Academy back the the AFL.

Well I agree with Greg Swann and think the swans should do the same.

[Meg]

As always the Swans are taking a considered approach, bless their cotton socks (sigh).

"Swans general manager of football Tom Harley said there was a lot to digest and the club would work through a number of scenarios before taking a firm stance."

See more at: Proposed bidding changes 'knee-jerk', says Lions CEO - AFL.com.au

[Mug Punter]

I have mixed feelings about the proposed changes which to be honest are about the best we could expect.

It's hard for us to now justify the potential benefits as opposed to the cost of the academy on a long term basis. I wouldn't be surprised to see us bank Mills and Dunkley but then largely scale back our investment, both financial and emotional, in the scheme.

It just isn't worth the huge sums when you have to pay three picks for one decent player that you produce. Sure you get access to the mid tier local players and that's great that we get more NSW kids but it's not really a huge incentive is it. For mine a fair system would be a priority pick each year and a second round local priority from the remainder pool once the first round had finished.

The Swans will be fine, we'll adapt and it does give us the occasional freak to draft but on the whole I think we'll be scaling back.

What really disappoints me is the damage to the game. The AFL have done very little to grow the game here since the Swans moved up in 1982. The academy was the best thing to happen to the game and as soon as it produced ONE, yes ONE, decent player it has been canned due to the self interest of pricks like Eddie McGuire who care nowt for the GAME and due to the fact that we have a polo playing pompous ponce as CEO of the AFL who has no interest in developing the game up here.

It's sad and it's actually a disgrace but it's nothing less than I expected....

[S.S. Bleeder]

What a great post. Brilliant Ludwig!

I quite like the idea of Mills doing a Chad Wingard. Having said that I would imagine if the Swans let him go he would be very disillusioned with the Swans and may not want to come back.

I think the Swans should go for Mills and Dunkley). We have not had a high pick since pick 6 (Garry Rohan) and we have a unique opportunity to get two brilliant prospects at a significant discount.

We will have to trade out some players to make up the points. It will depend on who wants to leave at the end of 2015. I would be open to great bids on Bird, Smith, Jetta, and Hannas. Maybe open to bids on Towers if he can play enough senior football to increase his trade value.

I agree with doing everything we can to get both players. However, I disagree with trading Nick Smith. Our backline is the weakest it has been in ages and we need him more than ever. I'd be happy to look at trades with our midfielders, especially Jetta and Bird (I'm a fan of Bird BTW).

I think we seriously need to consider having a confidential chat with Mills and Dunkley about "not performing to their true abilities" in the TAC cup this year. The Swans probably have too much integrity to do this but 90% of our opponents would.

[tasmania60]

Totally agree if the money is spent by the club and financial partners , why cant the elite talent be drafted to that club. Collingwood has been a financial powerhouse for years ,why haven't they the foursite for a academy . Or maybe their recruitment has been that good over 10 years .Carlton .Essendon Hawthorn the same, its a sham by the Victorian clubs who are really worried about the branding ,recruitment and generally a well run club .