the points system

[gazza]

do we have enough points to get both mills and Dunkley under the new academy and f/s system

[707]

Pick 14 - 1161
Pick 33 - 563
Pick 53 - 233
Pick 71 - peanuts
Total - 1960 ish

Mills @ 3 - 1787, @ 4 - 1627, @ 5 1502
Dunkley @ 21 - 681

So no, we don't have enough points. Providing Dunkley is bid on at pick 20 or later, deficit will come off our second rounder next year not our first.

Need to trade out a player for late 30s or swap our first for two 20s picks.

[sharp9]

Isn't there a discount for Academy and father son picks? So pick 3 is 1787 but it only "costs" us 75% of that to match it, I believe....or was that the old system before Eddie and Greg decided to remind the AFL who really runs the competition?

[sharp9]

Actually it's 20% for first round picks... and you've already done the deduction - explained here in recent article No Cookies | Fox Sports News, Live Sport, Sports | Fox Sports
That article lists all the points...so Pick 3 is 2234 (-20% = 1787) Pick 21 is 878.... and in the article it mentions there only being a discount for "first round" picks. Mmmmm

[sharp9]

Oh right - but in the fine print at AFL.com.au it says the discount for all picks after the second round is fixed at 197 points (discount for pick 18) so pick 21 does in fact require 681 to match. It's early...it took me some time.

[gazza]

gives me a headache, hope everyone else is okay.
think we need to trade another out to be sure

[707]

I'm a numbers man so no headache for me. As soon as they released the points I had it set out on an A4 sheet that lives permanently by my laptop. Been working permutations ever since! Yes, I know, sick man :-)

The discount is 20% for picks 1-18 then fixed at 197 points thereafter so the later the pick the bigger the discount percentage wise. Pick 56 and lower are basically a free pick.

So Pick 30 only costs you pick 40, pick 40 only costs you pick 53.

When you think of the haggling that goes on around later picks most years, that's a generous discount. It's to encourage academy clubs to pick up as many of their own as possible. It will really reduce the amount of go home players that is blighting the comp at present, particularly Brisbane and to a lesser degree GCS.

[R-1]

As it stands we have 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69 and 72.

Mills will almost certainly be bid on by Melbourne at 3 because they need the best midfielder they can get. I suspect they may bid on Hopper too, and if they bid him first that'd make us need to match Mills at 4 instead. But let's assume Mills goes at 3.

3 = 2234 points meaning the Swans need to match with 1787 points. That eats picks 33, 36 and 37 (a total of 1548) leaving 239 more needed which is deducted from 44 transforming it into pick 62 as it would leave 123 points remaining on that pick.

So after matching Mills, the Swans will then have picks 54, 62, 69 and 72, worth a total of 411 points.

A Dunkley bid at the start of the second round, pick 20 (912 points) needs to be matched by 715 points (ie 912 - 197). Matching that leaves the Swans a deficit of 304 points to be deducted from round 2 next year (points are deducted from future picks in the round the bid is made).

If Sydney finish 5th again our second rounder is pick 31. 304 points deducted from that pick's 606 points is 302, i, turning a 2016 pick of 31 into pick 48. Sydney would take that I believe.

(In actuality I think the shuffling and extinguishing of picks from our matching Mills adds 79 to our stockpile, meaning 31 instead becomes 43. And then GWS and Brisbane will also match for players, dragging up our late picks' value still further.)

As far as I can see, assuming neither Carlton nor Brisbane bid on Mills, the only way Sydney doesn't take Dunkley is either he doesn't nominate Sydney or he gets bid in the first round, in which case matching him hurts our first picks'value next year.

[The Big Cat]

the only way Sydney doesn't take Dunkley is either he doesn't nominate Sydney or he gets bid in the first round, in which case matching him hurts our first picks'value next year.

I think that Sydney will have to take Dunkley if he nominates as a father son. If we pass on him our next available pick is 54. By then there are only slim pickings.

[Ludwig]

As it stands we have 33, 36, 37, 44, 54, 69 and 72.

Mills will almost certainly be bid on by Melbourne at 3 because they need the best midfielder they can get. I suspect they may bid on Hopper too, and if they bid him first that'd make us need to match Mills at 4 instead. But let's assume Mills goes at 3.

3 = 2234 points meaning the Swans need to match with 1787 points. That eats picks 33, 36 and 37 (a total of 1548) leaving 239 more needed which is deducted from 44 transforming it into pick 62 as it would leave 123 points remaining on that pick.

So after matching Mills, the Swans will then have picks 54, 62, 69 and 72, worth a total of 411 points.

A Dunkley bid at the start of the second round, pick 20 (912 points) needs to be matched by 715 points (ie 912 - 197). Matching that leaves the Swans a deficit of 304 points to be deducted from round 2 next year (points are deducted from future picks in the round the bid is made).

If Sydney finish 5th again our second rounder is pick 31. 304 points deducted from that pick's 606 points is 302, i, turning a 2016 pick of 31 into pick 48. Sydney would take that I believe.

As far as I can see, assuming neither Carlton nor Brisbane bid on Mills, the only way Sydney doesn't take Dunkley is either he doesn't nominate Sydney or he gets bid in the first round, in which case matching him hurts our first picks'value next year.

I hope that I am interpreting the system correctly. It is confusing and I haven't read all the interpretation statements made by the AFL. My understanding is that when a bid is matched the original bid is 'purchased' by the matching club with whatever draft picks are required to meet the points total. Then those draft picks are taken out of play and the entire remaining draft schedule is redone, so that everyone will move down a notch and the gaps left by the matching picks are filled from below.

In your example, if we match a bid a #3, everyone moves down a notch until the our matching pick #33 is filled and the partially used pick at 44 get moved down. I believe the picks and 36 and 37 are eliminated from the system and I thought that everyone is moved up 2 notches to fill the gap, but I may be wrong on this matter. I can't find the documentation and can't remember how I arrived at this interpretation. So it makes a big difference on how this is done. As I noted earlier, I estimated that if the gaps are filled from below we are likely to pick up another 250 points or so from the revaluation of our lower picks.

If the bid matching picks stay in the system then everything keeps moving down and value gets continually eroded, which would seem unfair. Value is already being eroded by the free agency compo picks being inserted.

Hopefully someone can clarify this matter.

[R-1]

I hope that I am interpreting the system correctly. It is confusing and I haven't read all the interpretation statements made by the AFL. My understanding is that when a bid is matched the original bid is 'purchased' by the matching club with whatever draft picks are required to meet the points total. Then those draft picks are taken out of play and the entire remaining draft schedule is redone, so that everyone will move down a notch and the gaps left by the matching picks are filled from below.

In your example, if we match a bid a #3, everyone moves down a notch until the our matching pick #33 is filled and the partially used pick at 44 get moved down. I believe the picks and 36 and 37 are eliminated from the system and I thought that everyone is moved up 2 notches to fill the gap, but I may be wrong on this matter. I can't find the documentation and can't remember how I arrived at this interpretation. So it makes a big difference on how this is done. As I noted earlier, I estimated that if the gaps are filled from below we are likely to pick up another 250 points or so from the revaluation of our lower picks.

If the bid matching picks stay in the system then everything keeps moving down and value gets continually eroded, which would seem unfair. Value is already being eroded by the free agency compo picks being inserted.

Hopefully someone can clarify this matter.

We recieve pick 3 and then 33 and 36 and 37 move all the way to the back of the draft (90) so the later picks shuffle up notches as you said.

That means if we match pick 3 we end up with 33 36 and 37 going back to 90, and pick 44 becoming 62. It also means pick 54 rises to 51, 69 to 67 and 72 to 70. That adds, I believe, 79 to the stockpile for my calculations above.

Matching by GWS and Brisbane for Hopper, Kennedy, Keays and Hipwood will also be done with multiple picks and could move our later picks up another 5-8 places before it comes time to use them for Dunkley. At some point I'll do some calculations using Hopper and Kennedy top ten and the Brisbane guys at 13 or so and see where that leaves us for Dunkley but it should help a lot.

It will probably help the Saints get Rice a lot easier too.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Thanks guys

a 30% discount would have been a lot kinder then a 20% discount for a father son or academy player

[Benevolent Ert]

Are the points values fluid during the draft like that or are they fixed pre-draft?

[R-1]

I'm given to understand they're recalculated on the fly.

[Ludwig]

There appears to be at least 2 open issues concerning how the new bidding system works.

If more than 2 picks are used in matching bids than one or more gaps will exist from the transaction even after rearranging picks, unless these gaps are immediately filled from below with everyone moving up the order to close the gaps. If gaps are left vacant, then when subsequent 3+ matching bids are made, even more gaps are created and then where to move the rest of positions, both up and down become even more complicated. The 12 picks from 33 through 44 are all owned, bar 1, by Sydney, GWS and Brisbane, and would appear destined to be used for academy players. This will create many gaps in this range unless immediately filled after each transaction responsible for the gap. How the list moves dynamically if the gaps remain is something that certainly hasn't been addressed, at least publicly. One question would be if a new multipick matching bid is made by one club, does the list move only into slots created by that matching bid or into other slots previously created by earlier multipick matching bids.

The other issue has been raised in other posts concerning the number of picks permitted to be taken to the National draft and how the multipick matching bids affect this number. If the Giants take 10 picks into the draft and Hopper is bid at pick 1, then the first 3 picks the Giants have would be used to acquire Hopper, leaving only 7 picks left to fill 9 vacant positions on their list. Would they have to pass on Hopper and use all 10 low end draft picks to meet the minimum list requirements? Probably not. Then if Kennedy is bid for, then surely the remaining Giants pics will be gone as well. So they will be forced to fill their list with PSD picks of delisted players. Tony Armstrong is still a chance. The Giants will then have let go a bevy of previous top draft picks like Sumner and Plowmen only to have their places filled by the likes of Ryan Crowley and Jarrad Grant. This doesn't make sense.