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

[Pmcc2911]

[QUOTE=707;671392]"We need to stop focussing on what Mills and Dunkley will cost us this year for two reasons.

They may in fact slide down the order a little and not derail our 2016 recruiting."

You can bet Melbourne will bid for Mills (Roos knows his ability plus Roos still has the @@@@s with the Swans about his academy coaching gig) just to make Sydney use the higher number of points.

[Mountain Man]

The suggestion that the 'developing Academy' gets some benefit when a rival Club bids for an Academy seems sensible. I can't see quite how it would work - maybe if some one bids pick 3, we get 50% of that points value to use elsewhere.

[Triple B]

Basing systems and examples around Melbourne bidding pick 2 for Heeney last year is a falsity. Melbourne knew full well that the Swans would take Heeney under the system in place at the time, it was a no brainer and the pick 2 bid was just part of the process to keep Sydney honest, no problem with that.
Under the new system where the Swans would have to weigh up whether to sell the farm to get Heeney, I have great doubts on whether Melbourne would have bid Pick 2 with a real chance they could have been forced to use it...

[Ludwig]

We need to stop focussing on what Mills and Dunkley will cost us this year for two reasons.

They may in fact slide down the order a little and not derail our 2016 recruiting.

If they are as good as touted, then adding two talents like that to an already top flight and relatively young midfield will make us a powerhouse for 6-7 years at least.

The big win in the proposed system is fixing the discount at pick 18 level. I haven't done the spreadsheet yet but it means we are getting real bargains from the start of the second round. In normal years this is where our academy players are likely to be.

The bigger discount on R2+ players brings upgrades to later picks. The dynamics of it all are hugely complicated and I trust the club to work out all the nuances to our advantage.

So forget what Mills and Dunkley will cost, focus on the appreciable benefits of later picks, some of which will come free with the big discount. This is why the clubs response seems limp, they know the real bonuses of the new system.

There are several good points made in this post. I have been a bit too focused on the timing and targeting of these changes than the broader implications, which are probably better reflected in the statements from the northern clubs. After reading Callum Twomey's article (and video) on the AFL site, the changes to the bidding were clearly targeting our fortunate situation and it was seen as just too much benefit for such a good club to have. There was also the initial shock of our club's tepid response to the decision.It was probably difficult to defend getting Heeney, Mills and Dunkley for something like 2 pick 18s and a pick 36.

I am now trying to look at the new rules with a more balanced perspective.

I took a closer look at the fairness of value points scaling which initially seemed too heavily skewed to top end picks. In the new system a pick 1 is closely equivalent to picks 8 and 9 combined. Going through the draft history you would find this is probably true, in fact pick 1 is probably better than picks 8 and 9. Examples: Year 2000, Pick 1 was Nick Riewoldt vs Daniel Motlop + Kayne Pettifer, 2001 Luke Hodge v. Jimmy Bartel and Luke Molan (who?), 2002 Goddard v. Luke Brennan and Hamish McIntosh. And the rest is pretty much the same with a couple of exceptions.

Getting Mills and Dunkley could well cost us all our picks for next 2 years. But thinking about the specifics, would I pay Picks 18 + 38 for either? Surely I would and think we got a bargain. Losing the next picks, like 56 and 74 are irrelevant; it's the same as a rookie pick.

I previously called for closing the academies, but it would seem that Tom Harley is pleased to keep them under the present system. I now think he's right and I was wrong. As for the cost, the academy gives us another product to sell which we would not otherwise have had. So we sold the naming rights to QBE. It's not really costing the Swans very much out of pocket. A deeper analysis would likely show a good cost-benefit outcome.

I will add the following observations, a number of which have already been stated by other posters:

• The academy can give us access to top end players that simply would not be available to us under other circumstances. They may not come along often, but if we can pick up a Heeney or Mills from time to time, it certainly doesn't hurt.
• If the club can get the quality of Mills and Dunkley over a 2 year period while finishing near the top of the ladder, where our other picks come from really doesn't matter.
• The Swans will have so much young talent, especially in the midfield, that it will take time to bring these quality players through the system to play regularly at senior level. Look how hard it was to get Tom Mitchell a game. Think who is not in the side: Bird, Heeney, Jones, Hewett, Mills, Dunkley, Robinson, Perris (if he comes good). We only have Goodes and Shaw freeing up (non-KPP) spots in the next few years, followed by Macca and Benny.
• We already have salary cap problems. There are only so many stars a team can have before the pressure builds, particularly among the young quality players not getting enough games. Winning premierships seems to help keep a talented group together.
• It will be a challenge for our list management to work out who to keep and who to move on. Some popular players will certainly want to go elsewhere for regular stints at senior level.
• The system provides favourable terms to access players that are not at the very top tier. Players like Hiscox and Abe Davis will come cheaply and should provide many opportunities to fill our list with quality talent.
• Perhaps the Swans' management are happy with the result because with EM leading the charge it could have been worse, and he will probably try his best to make it worse if he can.
• I think we will take Mills and Dunkley (if we can) regardless of how much it costs in draft picks, although I don't think it would be so bad to let Mills go to Carlton if they have pick 1 and bid for him. I think Mills would find his way back to the Swans in a couple of years.
• I still have some concerns about vexatious bidding, but don't know what we can do about it. I think under this system it would be possible for the bottom club, say Carlton, to bid first for Mills, then we buy that pick with value points, leaving them with pick 2 which they use to bid for Dunks. So one club can take out all the top Academy FS picks before they actually get their player. This is what I mean by vexatious bidding. There should be a limit to how many 'nominated' players a club can bid for with a given draft pick (like 1)
• I predict that there will be many pages of draft strategy discussion on RWO when draft time comes around even without the contributions of **BANNED**.

[CureTheSane]

Really disappointed with the clubs response. Perhaps they know something we don't.

Yeah, that's what we thought last time (draft) and it just turned out that the club was weak.
They seem to be following that complacency again.

[The Big Cat]

There are several good points made in this post. I have been a bit too focused on the timing and targeting of these changes than the broader implications, which are probably better reflected in the statements from the northern clubs. After reading Callum Twomey's article (and video) on the AFL site, the changes to the bidding were clearly targeting our fortunate situation and it was seen as just too much benefit for such a good club to have. There was also the initial shock of our club's tepid response to the decision.It was probably difficult to defend getting Heeney, Mills and Dunkley for something like 2 pick 18s and a pick 36.

I am now trying to look at the new rules with a more balanced perspective.

I took a closer look at the fairness of value points scaling which initially seemed too heavily skewed to top end picks. In the new system a pick 1 is closely equivalent to picks 8 and 9 combined. Going through the draft history you would find this is probably true, in fact pick 1 is probably better than picks 8 and 9. Examples: Year 2000, Pick 1 was Nick Riewoldt vs Daniel Motlop + Kayne Pettifer, 2001 Luke Hodge v. Jimmy Bartel and Luke Molan (who?), 2002 Goddard v. Luke Brennan and Hamish McIntosh. And the rest is pretty much the same with a couple of exceptions.

Getting Mills and Dunkley could well cost us all our picks for next 2 years. But thinking about the specifics, would I pay Picks 18 + 38 for either? Surely I would and think we got a bargain. Losing the next picks, like 56 and 74 are irrelevant; it's the same as a rookie pick.

I previously called for closing the academies, but it would seem that Tom Harley is pleased to keep them under the present system. I now think he's right and I was wrong. As for the cost, the academy gives us another product to sell which we would not otherwise have had. So we sold the naming rights to QBE. It's not really costing the Swans very much out of pocket. A deeper analysis would likely show a good cost-benefit outcome.

I will add the following observations, a number of which have already been stated by other posters:

• The academy can give us access to top end players that simply would not be available to us under other circumstances. They may not come along often, but if we can pick up a Heeney or Mills from time to time, it certainly doesn't hurt.
• If the club can get the quality of Mills and Dunkley over a 2 year period while finishing near the top of the ladder, where our other picks come from really doesn't matter.
• The Swans will have so much young talent, especially in the midfield, that it will take time to bring these quality players through the system to play regularly at senior level. Look how hard it was to get Tom Mitchell a game. Think who is not in the side: Bird, Heeney, Jones, Hewett, Mills, Dunkley, Robinson, Perris (if he comes good). We only have Goodes and Shaw freeing up (non-KPP) spots in the next few years, followed by Macca and Benny.
• We already have salary cap problems. There are only so many stars a team can have before the pressure builds, particularly among the young quality players not getting enough games. Winning premierships seems to help keep a talented group together.
• It will be a challenge for our list management to work out who to keep and who to move on. Some popular players will certainly want to go elsewhere for regular stints at senior level.
• The system provides favourable terms to access players that are not at the very top tier. Players like Hiscox and Abe Davis will come cheaply and should provide many opportunities to fill our list with quality talent.
• Perhaps the Swans' management are happy with the result because with EM leading the charge it could have been worse, and he will probably try his best to make it worse if he can.
• I think we will take Mills and Dunkley (if we can) regardless of how much it costs in draft picks, although I don't think it would be so bad to let Mills go to Carlton if they have pick 1 and bid for him. I think Mills would find his way back to the Swans in a couple of years.
• I still have some concerns about vexatious bidding, but don't know what we can do about it. I think under this system it would be possible for the bottom club, say Carlton, to bid first for Mills, then we buy that pick with value points, leaving them with pick 2 which they use to bid for Dunks. So one club can take out all the top Academy FS picks before they actually get their player. This is what I mean by vexatious bidding. There should be a limit to how many 'nominated' players a club can bid for with a given draft pick (like 1)
• I predict that there will be many pages of draft strategy discussion on RWO when draft time comes around even without the contributions of **BANNED**.

Good analysis Ludwig except I don't think Sydney would go for Dunkley if they had to pay pick 2 rates.

We need Pies to stay away from the bottom of the ladder although I'm sure Eddie will have his stooges at other clubs

[Kelpie_X]

If the AFL fund the academies, then the other clubs will feel that they should have equal access to the players as well. If that is the case, then they should fully fund the academies and remove the discounts and just have an open market. And then hopefully in a few years the go-home factor will come into play

That's the only way it is ever going to be fair. The Swans need to grab what they can now and drop the academy after this season. Then hand it over to the AFL, stating that in the interest of fairness it is now an open market and we're handing control over to the AFL. And hopefully out of all this, if we remain a strong club, we will get the go home factor happening for us.

I mean lets face it having it is unfair in it's current form on non northern clubs. And even in its now revised form there is always going to be that stigma attached to the swans, when we get a good player out of the academy, that somehow we cheated.

- - - Updated - - -

This. There is now nowhere near as much incentive for the Swans to run the academy. Hand funding over to the AFL.

And neither should there have been an incentive for the swans to do it. Its the AFL. The AFL have to develop the market. Not us.

[Mug Punter]

I think that the outcome is fair and I think this is now a line in the sand - any further erosion of this scheme and the draft is challenged in court.

The big picture is the ability to assemble, almost unhindered, a squad with a NSW content of hopefully 50% within 5 years and I would hope 75% within 10 years. This is crucial with us losing the COLA and I suspect even the rental assistance will coming under fire from the Fat C@@@ who runs the AFL.

The ability to have control of our destiny is crucial plus we will have the most researched draft picks in the league - think about it, we have seen this kids grow up over 8-10 years, the chances of blowing a draft pick from the Academy (injuries notwithstanding) are slim.

Keeping the discount fixed at 197 points is also a big win as it basically means that provided our first round pick is not rated top 10 we can recruit four highly background checked recruits rated within the top 40 with relatively low penalty. Apologies for my endless permutations but if we finished 6th (let's say that is our result baseline) we can recruit the equivalent of 13,25,30,40 as our four draft picks and only have to trade a late third round pick (pick 50 to be exact). There's a huge difference between getting your fourth pick at 40 instead of 67.

Every now and then we will have to pay a fair whack for a Heeney and Mills and when they come along we'll just take the hit but I think it will be the picks 20-40 that give us the benefit.

Early on there will be a few games re phantom bids, and in the first few years we'll just have to wear it but in the long run we may have to lose the odd one to make the phantom biddee pay. I can't see it happening in the second and third rounds which is where I feel we'll get the benefit.

It's the certainty of our bids that is the great benefit. We just need to make the numbers stack up after this.

And to get the draft side of things running along, I can see us trading Jetta to Freo or WCE for their first round pick which should, along with a Towers/Harry/Bird in the late second round allow us to pick up both Mills and Dunks without dipping into the following year.

I'd say we will definitely take Mills but we'll be a little more pragmatic about Dunkley and clubs looking at taking him below 10 should do so at their own peril. In fact I'd be happy to lose him to a phantom bid just to prove a point, after all he can always demand a trade to us in two years time

[crackedactor]

I agree that 20% for time and effort is quite laughable, it should be twice that. They all forget Isaac Heeney got teased at school and was a bit of an outcast because he had chosen AFL instead of rugby league. Most other kids would have conformed, just to be in the crowd. Obviously some people at the club worked very hard. Sydney Swans response was pretty poor, but I would not be surprised if Gill the Dill threatened them with= No trading for the next two years unless you agree with us!!!

[barry]

This system wont last 3 years. The AFL changes rules more often than i change my jocks.
the 20% is punative penalty against the swans because they are successful. If the swans weren't top 4, no change would be made.

This is a damning inditement on the AFL. But typical.

[Ludwig]

The AFL changes rules more often than i change my jocks.

No wonder the attendance is down at ANZ Stadium.


Of course the rule changes were a reaction to what was a perceived unfairness for a top 4 club to be getting very top end talent in the draft. This has never been a secret. The question was whether this was a knee jerk reaction to what seems to be an aberration in that it is quite unusual for 2 very highly talented prospects would be available to the Swans in consecutive years. Only history will resolve that matter.

I only hope that this quest for purity in the draft flows over to purity in financial distributions. We all know that money is king and that should be the prime focus for equalisation, but why do I have the feeling that's not going to happen.

[barry]

And purity of fixturing.

[YvonneH]

Don't know if this has been raised already but here goes.
Is it possible that we take both Mills and Dunkley this year, therefore mortgaging the next few years' draft because we know that there are no top draft picks coming through the academy in the next couple of years?

Doesn't sound likely but anything is possible.

I am surprised at the reaction of the club though. I thought we would have fought a little harder.

[Reggi]

I think the club should do everything to get Mills and Dunkley. Mills will probably slip at least not one. No longer think that Dunkley is considered top 10

[chalbilto]

I think the club should do everything to get Mills and Dunkley. Mills will probably slip at least not one. No longer think that Dunkley is considered top 10

Hey Reggi,

What makes you think that Dunkley is no longer top 10 pick?
P.S. I hope you are right.