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

[rojo]

I wonder what would happen if QBE decided it would end its sponsorship of the Swans Academy at the end of 2015? I suspect however that their commitment is on a longer term basis, so make that whenever their current commitment would be renewed.

[mcs]

You trade out players who offer good trade value and can be replaced. How much longer is Smith going to be in the prime of his career? Zac Jones looks like he had all the abilities to be an effective replacement for Smith. If Smith and the Swans get a good offer to return to Victoria, why not take it?

Craig Bird is taking midfield time that could be given to Mitchell, Heeney Hewitt, and Mills / Dunkley next year. Is Bird going to be better than the above guys? Is Bird going to get better than he is now? If a good 2nd round draft pick was offered, why not take it? Bird had a lot of value to ad to other teams in the AFL. There are too many guys who play a similar position to Bird at the Swans.

We need to secure the services of these two exiting midfield prospects to build the Heeney, Hewitt, Dunkley and Mills future powerhouse midfield. We will need to trade smartly to do that.

This is just my opinion.

You are writing off Smith at the age of 26! He has at least (assuming he has a reasonable run with injuries) 5 good seasons left in him, if not more. Jones is a promising player, but you can't tell me that, at very least for a few years, we would be weakened if we got rid of smith? You can have the greatest midfield in the world - but its not much use if your defence doesn't stack up.

We have far more urgent issues to deal with in the defence over the next few years than to potentially create more by trading out a player at his peak that get the job done, week in, week out. I don't even think he would be on particularly big $$$$, so I hardly think there are big $ savings to be made.

[Steve]

The AFL wouldn't release this level of detail without being 98% committed to it, so we need to get used to it.

It will be better for us if they retain the 15% discount for FS - we'll have more academy picks than FS over the years, so the smaller the discount for the VIC clubs when the next Ablett comes up is preferable. Although I suspect this will be the one aspect they'll cave on and relax it to 25%.

It is false logic though to retrospectively apply their new system to past drafts which have operated under different rules.

Eg. in fact it's highly unlikely Melbourne would have bid pick 2 for Heeney under this proposed system - they did so under a system where they knew there was no chance whatsoever that Sydney wouldn't use pick 18 on him. So effectively that was a dummy bid which didn't reflect a deep analysis of Heeney vs the other top prospects. Another club in the top 10 would have bid, but we'd have paid less than what their example is saying is fair.

It also doesn't account for the fact that under a new system there can (and will) be manipulation that wasn't possible in the past - eg. with the discounts, if you start with pick 10 and have an academy prospect rated around that mark, rather than just take the player at the draft with your original pick, you're probably better off trading for a pick a few picks later (and move up the order with later picks) and then use a discounted matching bid once someone else has bidded for that player.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I wonder what would happen if QBE decided it would end its sponsorship of the Swans Academy at the end of 2015? I suspect however that their commitment is on a longer term basis, so make that whenever their current commitment would be renewed.

If this system stays, the academy benefit to the Swans has definitely been diminished. As a result we would have to dramatically reduce our financial investment in the academy or drop it all together. I would imagine that QBE would be like minded. Also, if the benefit has been reduced, the Swans and QBE should be entitled to financial compensation from the AFL. This depend of course on the wording of the initial agreement.

I think the Swans should throw everything at getting Mills and Dunkley. Even if it means no other selections below 100 for the next two years. I would prefer to have two players that will be certainly guns rather than 8 potentially good players. There are no potentail guns coing through the academy at the moment so we need to make the most of it.

Overall the system isn't a bad idea (in theory). The issue I have with it is;
1) That the points allocated to the top few selections in the draft is too high. The top of the J curve needs to be flattened out a little.
2) The timing of it is clear aimed at the Swans. It wasn't an issue when Geelong were recruiting Ablett, etc, Of course in the past few decades Collingwood has benefitted most from the F/S system;
Collingwood 12, Geelong 11, Carlton 8 and Western Bulldogs 7 and nothing was done to them.

It's also occurred to me that having the F/S selections included in the draft should remove the likelihood of opposition clubs making false bids. If another gun player is available will they take the chance to miss out on them by bidding for a F/S selection? I just hope we get additional time to consider our options in this situation.

Ps. MAKE SURE YOU ALL VOTE ON OUR RIGHTS ON THE ACADEMY PLAYERS VIA THE AFL WEBSITE. Will the AFL's new bidding system be fairer? - AFL.com.au

[707]

Settle folks, I've had a good look at the mathematics and with the 25% discount we are still on a winner. If you look at it in all fairness, we shouldn't get a big advantage at the draft just because we spent some $ on the Academy. Don't forget that in Academy players we have 100% committed to the Swans players, no go home factor or getting lured by other clubs to worry about in the future which is what happens when you draft an interstater. We've also had a big win with Heeney, he is in all likelyhood worth every cent we've already spent on the Academy!

The problem for us this year comes at the very pointy end of the draft where the points ramp up considerably.

Pick 1 = 3000 points
Pick 2 = 2517 points, 483 less than Pick 1
Pick 3 = 2234 ponits, 283 less than Pick 2 and 766 less than Pick 1

The curve falls away evenly and quickly right from Pick 1. What we don't need is for Callum Mills to be Pick 1 as then we're stuffed. If he falls to say Pick 4 then he will cost us 1500 points, half of the value of Pick 1 for just a small slide in rankings.

The system is complicated and no doubt all clubs will be extensivey looking at how this type of system works in major leagues in the USA just to make sure they understand how to best manage (and manipulate) it.

The AFL has only published it because it's almost a fait acomplii so we just have to wear it. What we need to happen now is for Mills and Dunkley not to have blinders this year so they slip a little in the ratings. A little slip down equates to a much cheaper price, particularly with the 25% discount.

In future years, providing we are not regularly producing Academy players that are top four and providing likely draftees are spread across the full draft range then we won't have problems.

Also, draft picks now have a definite points value attached to them which I reckon makes it easier for recruiters at trade time, particularly for the four northern teams who will roughly know how many points they need in a trade to use on Academy and F/S at the next draft.

[Dosser]

Does this mean that the clubs with the first few picks will have to announce them before the draft to give clubs with academy/fs picks a chance to respond?

[mcs]

Settle folks, I've had a good look at the mathematics and with the 25% discount we are still on a winner. If you look at it in all fairness, we shouldn't get a big advantage at the draft just because we spent some $ on the Academy. Don't forget that in Academy players we have 100% committed to the Swans players, no go home factor or getting lured by other clubs to worry about in the future which is what happens when you draft an interstater. We've also had a big win with Heeney, he is in all likelyhood worth every cent we've already spent on the Academy!

I don't agree that there shouldn't be a reasonable advantage to the Swans from the Academy (and other clubs with academies). What is to stop other teams doing the same (are there restrictions on Academies?) and setting up their own academies.

The key thing with the Academy setup is that it is clearly going to pay significant dividends in terms of expanding the talent pool. We aren't pinching players from other clubs, shoving them through the academy then claiming them as our own. We are getting players from our area, developing them, and therefore should have a reasonable expectation to get to choose the best players (though probably not as cheaply as we got Heeney) - especially in relation to those players that would never have been an AFL talent if it hadn't been for the Academies. That is where a more than reasonable advantage is the least that can be expected.

I also think you are underplaying the potential issue around 'Academy players we have 100% committed to the Swans'. Whilst there is no go home factor, if the players are good, you can rest assure the big melbourne clubs in particular will throw huge $$$ at them to go there - that lure of other clubs will most definitely be there, especially if players think that salaries being paid by the Swans are lower than they could command on the open market.

As everyone has said, the key issue at the moment is the big spike at the top end. Surely there are more than enough examples of duds taken at the top of the draft to suggest that it shouldn't be as steep at the top.

[Auntie.Gerald]

agreed 707

My gut feeling is that not many would pick Mills at no1 but i have not looked at the top 10 as yet and where he fits.......and if 6th or below it is very fair

As i stated earlier if you want the best player in the draft and they happen to be father son or academy then you have to compensate...........this is in reality going to be a one in five years or maybe even one in eight over a 20 year period of time

It is just a rare event for it to happen two years in a row like 2014 and 2015

[Jimitron5000]

I don't mind the concept of it but it does need refining, for example the difference in value between pick 1 and pick 5.
Hypothetical, but do you think this would have happened if it was Darcy Moore Melbourne bid pick 2 for and Collingwood had to give up pick 18. Probably not.

- - - Updated - - -

An aside...making the draft more entertaining? Ludicrous! It has marginally less entertainment value than Antiques Roadshow. Extending it out to allow recruiters to run a few numbers on their spreadsheets isn't going to improve the 'spectacle' at all.

[lorakf]

The AFL wouldn't release this level of detail without being 98% committed to it, so we need to get used to it.

It will be better for us if they retain the 15% discount for FS - we'll have more academy picks than FS over the years, so the smaller the discount for the VIC clubs when the next Ablett comes up is preferable. Although I suspect this will be the one aspect they'll cave on and relax it to 25%.

It is false logic though to retrospectively apply their new system to past drafts which have operated under different rules.

Eg. in fact it's highly unlikely Melbourne would have bid pick 2 for Heeney under this proposed system - they did so under a system where they knew there was no chance whatsoever that Sydney wouldn't use pick 18 on him. So effectively that was a dummy bid which didn't reflect a deep analysis of Heeney vs the other top prospects. Another club in the top 10 would have bid, but we'd have paid less than what their example is saying is fair.

It also doesn't account for the fact that under a new system there can (and will) be manipulation that wasn't possible in the past - eg. with the discounts, if you start with pick 10 and have an academy prospect rated around that mark, rather than just take the player at the draft with your original pick, you're probably better off trading for a pick a few picks later (and move up the order with later picks) and then use a discounted matching bid once someone else has bidded for that player.

I agree with this. I think this proposed system makes the other teams more accountable for their bid. As you said, Melbourne knew Sydney would not pass up Heeney for pick 18 so they made sure that Sydney locked in a bid. It would be interesting to know if they really rated Heeney over Petracca as they are very different players.

[wolftone57]

We may even have to trade players just to draft Mills and forget about Dunkley if it's strickly based on this points system.

If someone bids pick 1 (2250 pts with 25% discsount) or pick 2 (1888 pts) and our first pick is #18, etc. then the total points we have available from all our picks is only 1726. So we potentially wouldn't have enough available to get either one.

If you can give up every draft pick you have and still not be able to get an academy player that you put 8 years into, then something is not right. It appears that the system was specifically designed so we get shafted out of getting Mills and Dunkley.

The AFL supplement showing the calculations for what it would have taken to get Heeney is distortion because it should have shown that we could not have gotten Heeney except for the FA compensation we got for Malceski. So in effect Heeney would have cost us all our draft picks plus Malceski and we couldn't have gotten either Hiscox or Davis.

We'll have to wait to see what the final version is, but I think this one may be worth going to court over. It hardly seems worth continuing with the academy with this system. I think QBE has a good case as well, as do the parents of these kids who invested a lot to get them a local club. It cost $5 million dollars and pick 18 to get one player, Isaac Heeney. Talk about rorting the system.

Maybe the 4 northern clubs should quit the AFL and start their own league. I'm getting sick of whole lot of them anyway.

$5million/year for 5 years.

[Ludwig]

If this system stays, the academy benefit to the Swans has definitely been diminished. As a result we would have to dramatically reduce our financial investment in the academy or drop it all together. I would imagine that QBE would be like minded. Also, if the benefit has been reduced, the Swans and QBE should be entitled to financial compensation from the AFL. This depend of course on the wording of the initial agreement.

I think the Swans should throw everything at getting Mills and Dunkley. Even if it means no other selections below 100 for the next two years. I would prefer to have two players that will be certainly guns rather than 8 potentially good players. There are no potentail guns coing through the academy at the moment so we need to make the most of it.

Overall the system isn't a bad idea (in theory). The issue I have with it is;
1) That the points allocated to the top few selections in the draft is too high. The top of the J curve needs to be flattened out a little.
2) The timing of it is clear aimed at the Swans. It wasn't an issue when Geelong were recruiting Ablett, etc, Of course in the past few decades Collingwood has benefitted most from the F/S system;
Collingwood 12, Geelong 11, Carlton 8 and Western Bulldogs 7 and nothing was done to them.

It's also occurred to me that having the F/S selections included in the draft should remove the likelihood of opposition clubs making false bids. If another gun player is available will they take the chance to miss out on them by bidding for a F/S selection? I just hope we get additional time to consider our options in this situation.

Ps. MAKE SURE YOU ALL VOTE ON OUR RIGHTS ON THE ACADEMY PLAYERS VIA THE AFL WEBSITE. Will the AFL's new bidding system be fairer? - AFL.com.au

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.

I'm glad to see that Greg Swann has already lined up against the system. So maybe the academy clubs with fight this thing.

I also agree with all the nasty comments about Eddie McGuire, except perhaps that they weren't nasty enough. He is a blight on the game.

[dimelb]

I agree with the criticisms of the way the graph of the points drops so sharply right from No. 1. Given the importance traditionally placed on getting a top ten pick, the graph should look more like the right hand side of the standard bell curve, dropping gradually at first, then dropping more steeply as the lower picks progress until finally bottoming out towards the end of the draft.

I'm still not happy with the lack of consideration given to the specific difficulties of the NSW and Queensland clubs.

[Matt80]

I agree with the criticisms of the way the graph of the points drops so sharply right from No. 1. Given the importance traditionally placed on getting a top ten pick, the graph should look more like the right hand side of the standard bell curve, dropping gradually at first, then dropping more steeply as the lower picks progress until finally bottoming out towards the end of the draft.

I'm still not happy with the lack of consideration given to the specific difficulties of the NSW and Queensland clubs.

I'm happy with the system as long as there is some minor adjustment. I think the discount points on Academy selections should be boosted to 30% and the F/S should be boosted to 20%.

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.

We therefore need to trade some guys out at the end of 2015 to get some points.

I've spoken about Bird and Smith being traded for points. Do other people have some other suggestions on who we can trade to raise some points.

[Meg]

2015 academy discussion thread

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..

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.