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

[Steve]

Unless something extraordinary happens with the ladder, and/or the draft order after trade week, you'd have to think he's 99% sure to accept an offer if we make him one.

He's not going to be the No.1 pick like Murphy was (nor does it seem likely a VIC club will have that pick anyway.) So unless there is a significant run of consecutive picks for VIC clubs, around where he's expected to be taken, and he received strong commitments from at least a couple of those clubs to take him, he'd run the serious risk of turning down Sydney to end up in SA, for example. Even if it were Geelong, he'd have to move there which is a 4+ hour drive from Sale.

It sounds as though the club have been as direct as they can with him re: their interest, so it would seem quite unlikely from either side that things wouldn't work out.

[Mug Punter]

Given that according to the article he is now 190 cm and probably still growing and with our trade restrictions be hard to see us not taking him in what we are being told is not a deep draft - especially if he wants certainty on what club he will be playing for

And after the insipid performance on Friday night you coild also argue that the sooner we start to regenerate the list with some yoof the better

Mills and Dunks to join Heeney, Jones and Hewett as regulars by the end of 2016 needs to be the goal

Leaves some pretty decent competition for the remaining - Goodes and Shaw gone, Rampe must be under threat and perhaps a couple of other regulars (McVeigh and Jack) could be coming to the end of stellar careers.

[liz]

I think this is one of the downsides of the new system from a nominating player perspective. In the past it was really the club offering the player a spot, often much earlier in the year - which was simple in terms of accepting it, or rejecting (eg. Marc Murphy).

Now a club really can't make a commitment until close to the deadline, but even then there would have to be disclaimers put on that - eg. you nominate them on the basis you think no-one will bid higher than a 3rd round pick, but then someone 'bids' a much higher pick - you may have no other choice but to decline matching it as it would completely throw out the rest of your draft strategy.

So even once the draft starts, in many cases you still couldn't have given a 100% commitment to the player you're eligible to select. So of course Dunkley can't be making firm commitments to nominate Sydney when it will still be some time before we can even decide how strong an indication we can give him that we would be able to take him.

If the AFL get their technology organised and it is live bidding in the draft, I can't see why they'd make it a bidding process anyway. Just leave it that clubs can pick any available player during the draft, and if that is an academy or FS player, then the other club can match that selection as per the new scale. It potentially disadvantages the nominating club having to play your hand prior to the draft, rather than just letting clubs choose players based on where they really think they'll go or how much they want them, rather than factoring in that a club has nominated certain players (and so fairly committed to taking them).

Seems like the AFL sees it the same way.
Live bidding could make northern academy kids face nervous wait - AFL.com.au

[Conor_Dillon]

Seems like the AFL sees it the same way.
Live bidding could make northern academy kids face nervous wait - AFL.com.au

Might make clubs slightly more hesitant to throw in false bids.

[707]

To stop vexatious bidding it would be best if both Academy and F/S don't have to be nominated prior to the draft but just get bid on as per normal with "owning" clubs then able to match the bid or decline to match. This is really important when you have multiple bids in play and don't know how much the first (Mills) will cost before having to also agree by nominating F/S Dunkley.

If for instance we think Dunkley is around pick 13/14, we may be happy to take him around there IF Mills doesn't go higher than pick 5. But if we have to nominate Dunkley pre draft and therefore get committed to him by the rules, let's say Mills goes at pick 3 we may then decide we can't afford Dunkley at pick 13/14.

Even worse, having committed to Dunkley, some @@@@@ of a club bids on him at pick 6 just to force us into bad arrears in the 2016 draft.

So the only fair way to do it is to not have to nominate a player pre draft and just decide when they are bid on by another club whether you want to match the bid. In the case of F/S players, the player would have to indicate they are willing to go F/S if the club agrees to match the bid.

The VFL needs to tread very carefully here because if players are a lock to your club, vexatious clubs can bid much higher than the player is worth because there is no penalty to them doing so. Make no mistake, if last years draft was run under this years proposed rules, Melbourne would not have bid on Heeney at pick 2 and risked losing Brayshaw.

[Conor_Dillon]

Wait, us nominating Josh doesn't force us to match the bid if we believe the bid is too high, does it?

[liz]

Wait, us nominating Josh doesn't force us to match the bid if we believe the bid is too high, does it?

No it doesn't. And I doubt vexatious bids won't really be that much of a big deal. As soon as one club gets lumped with a player they don't really want, no club will do it again. I think most clubs realise that the Swans can't afford to over pay (ie match a top 10 pick) for Dunkley, given they're likely to have to cough up the equivalent of a top 5 pick for Mills. If it were only Dunkley, clubs might think the Swans likely to slightly over pay. But with both in the mix, I think the game changes slightly.

[jono2707]

It would be hard calling another club's bid for Mills, especially, and to a slightly lesser extent Dunkley, vexatious, as they are both very good footballers and worthy of pretty high draft picks.

Just as I wouldn't call Melbourne's bid for Heeney last year vexatious as pretty much everyone knew he was a darn good footballer and the Demons would've happily taken him if he were handed to them.

[707]

Just as I wouldn't call Melbourne's bid for Heeney last year vexatious as pretty much everyone knew he was a darn good footballer and the Demons would've happily taken him if he were handed to them.

I would.

If that situation was live as it will be this year, do you think Melbourne would want to take a red and white blooded Heeney away from home and lose a home town player they rated very highly (and it's proven correct by his year so far) in Brayshaw? The answer is no. If they thought there was a chance we could pass on Heeney because it would burn all our picks and next years first pick they wouldn't have bid.

Bidding pick 2 was very politically motivated! I'm just hoping Heeney does live up to that billing because it looks like Brayshaw is so far living up to his number 3 position.

Reckon they only did it because we were always taking Heeney with a measly pick 18 and so they could make a big statement about academy bidding. Eddie's arguments wouldn't have looked so strong if Heeney drifted out to 5 or 6 before a bid was lodged.

[707]

........And I doubt vexatious bids won't really be that much of a big deal. As soon as one club gets lumped with a player they don't really want, no club will do it again.............

Agree Liz, vexatious bids will die as soon as that happens. Love for it to be this year, someone like the talent laden GWS could do it without hurting their list.

[Mug Punter]

No it doesn't. And I doubt vexatious bids won't really be that much of a big deal. As soon as one club gets lumped with a player they don't really want, no club will do it again. I think most clubs realise that the Swans can't afford to over pay (ie match a top 10 pick) for Dunkley, given they're likely to have to cough up the equivalent of a top 5 pick for Mills. If it were only Dunkley, clubs might think the Swans likely to slightly over pay. But with both in the mix, I think the game changes slightly.

Spot on.

The system will gradually sort itself out.

From time to time we will get trumped on first rounders like Mills but once we bed down the initial crop of academy graduates I expect us to take quite a hard nosed approach to our academy drafting. And I expect we may let one or two pass through to a Melbourne club in the next year if we believe they are making a bid that does not reflect value.

[Conor_Dillon]

Not watching the game today but just saw on Twitter that Dunkley has had 11 touches in the first half for Vic Country against WA, the most is 13.

[Meg]

vexatious bids will die as soon as that happens.

I read that quickly and thought you said 'vexatious kids' - and wondered why you were talking about Nick Kyrgios on a footy site!

[dimelb]

I read that quickly and thought you said 'vexatious kids' - and wondered why you were talking about Nick Kyrgios on a footy site!

And no wonder!

But that's good news about young Dunkley.

[707]

U18 All Australian team named today. I have it on good authority that Mills who didn't play at all and Dunkley who only briefly appeared at the end for two games will both be named in the team.



Maguire directed the VFL to put them in :-)