the points system

[707]

Thinking that we must be able to use more picks than we've got list vacancies otherwise we wouldn't have re-signed AJ on the main list again when he said he was happy to go onto the rookie list if necessary.

Currently have 35 on the main list, 5 spots available.

The feature of the new system is that picks are extinguished during the bidding process so you must be able to carry more picks into the ND to allow for that on the night extinguishing. The number extinguished is of course entirely dependent on how high your academy or F/S player is bid on by the spoiling club.

[liz]

They are not extinguished. They just move to the end of the draft.

[annew]

[QUOTE=ugg;686578]I can't wait until the Hawthorn honchos raise this "rort" with the Herald Sun[/QUOTE
I am sick of the hawthorn honchos & their whinging. They need to look at the benefits they are getting for playing in Tas, like more games in Melbourne. Seriously sick of Collingwood, hawthorn & Bulldogs dictating to Gill.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I'd be surprised if the Swans bore a grudge for, say, Melbourne bidding for Mills at 3. They should. They want a mid and most of the draft watchers place him around that mark - slightly better than Parish and one of the threr best mids along with Hopper. That's market value and we should be happy to pay it.

Hawthorn are subsidised by the most depressed economy and mendicant government in the nation. They can go ...

[Ludwig]

I'd be surprised if the Swans bore a grudge for, say, Melbourne bidding for Mills at 3. They should. They want a mid and most of the draft watchers place him around that mark - slightly better than Parish and one of the threr best mids along with Hopper. That's market value and we should be happy to pay it.

I agree, as we did them no favours. But is it enough for them to think that we might bear a grudge enough to dissuade them from bidding on Mills at 3? You never know who you might need next year. But I do feel if Mills makes it past 3 he should go to at Melbourne's next pick - provisionally 7. Essendon do owe us a favour.

I would be upset if Melbourne bid for Mills at 3 and then didn't take a midfielder with that pick. But taking Parish is okay.

[Mug Punter]

I agree, as we did them no favours. But is it enough for them to think that we might bear a grudge enough to dissuade them from bidding on Mills at 3? You never know who you might need next year. But I do feel if Mills makes it past 3 he should go to at Melbourne's next pick - provisionally 7. Essendon do owe us a favour.

I would be upset if Melbourne bid for Mills at 3 and then didn't take a midfielder with that pick. But taking Parish is okay.

In the highly unlikely scenario that Mills slipped to 7 ands Mills to 26 then by my calcs we would also have two picks in the early 40s (I make it 43 and 44) which would be a remarkable result. You'd hope we have the cap space to fund this is it happens.

- - - Updated - - -

I would be upset if Melbourne bid for Mills at 3 and then didn't take a midfielder with that pick. But taking Parish is okay.

That is the situation where I would be really angry with Roos, it's a test of his integrity actually. If he bids on Mills and then takes a tall I'll be very disappointed

[Meg]

They are not extinguished. They just move to the end of the draft.

That's correct. To my surprise, this includes ALL the picks we might have to use - that is none of them are extinguished.

I've put this comment in another thread as well - but to repeat - there seems to me to be an anomaly (not one we are going to complain about though). I would have thought that if, for example, we had had to use picks 18, 37, 38 and part of 57 to draft Heeney, then we would have extinguished our highest value pick (18) and the other three would have moved backwards. However the AFL scenario of May shows all four picks moving backwards. That is, we lose value but we don't actually lose a pick.

If I've read that correctly it doesn't make sense to me. Under the old rule we would have matched with our highest pick (18) and then lost that pick.

Am I reading this correctly?

[707]

Melb didn't trade up to pick 3 without having a target they knew wouldn't make it to their original pick 6.

Talk seems to be Parish is who they want. Francis was touted at U18 Championships as the likely pick 3 after the big two but seems to have slipped a little.

Liz, you are of course correct. Multiple completely used picks end up at the back of the draft not extinguished, although at the back of the draft they may as well be! Partially used picks eg Pick 44 (362 points) has 200 points left moves to pick 56, the value of those 200 points but I think we on this board already have a handle on that already.

[Conor_Dillon]

I would be upset if Melbourne bid for Mills at 3 and then didn't take a midfielder with that pick. But taking Parish is okay.

Why though? It might be that they rate Mills as the 3rd best player in the draft, hence bidding on him with that pick. Most recruiters will always take the best available player with a top 5 pick regardless of the position they play...passing on gun talent to fulfil potential needs is fraught with danger.

[Mug Punter]

Why though? It might be that they rate Mills as the 3rd best player in the draft, hence bidding on him with that pick. Most recruiters will always take the best available player with a top 5 pick regardless of the position they play...passing on gun talent to fulfil potential needs is fraught with danger.

I see what you are saying but for mine if they take a KPD it reeks of a phantom bid. It's not a major issue as we can accomodate Mills at 3 and still get Dunks at a fair price

[bungwahl]

That's correct. To my surprise, this includes ALL the picks we might have to use - that is none of them are extinguished.

I've put this comment in another thread as well - but to repeat - there seems to me to be an anomaly (not one we are going to complain about though). I would have thought that if, for example, we had had to use picks 18, 37, 38 and part of 57 to draft Heeney, then we would have extinguished our highest value pick (18) and the other three would have moved backwards. However the AFL scenario of May shows all four picks moving backwards. That is, we lose value but we don't actually lose a pick.

If I've read that correctly it doesn't make sense to me. Under the old rule we would have matched with our highest pick (18) and then lost that pick.

Am I reading this correctly?

If we use the points from 4 picks to get Mills, only 3 picks are moved to the back of the draft. We still lose one pick in drafting the player.

[Meg]

If we use the points from 4 picks to get Mills, only 3 picks are moved to the back of the draft. We still lose one pick in drafting the player.

That's what you would expect. But it's not what's shown in the AFL's document put out in May, where they provide several examples of how this bidding system would have worked if it had been in place last year. For Heeney, they show the Swans using four picks, and all four picks then getting moved back.

[bungwahl]

That's what you would expect. But it's not what's shown in the AFL's document put out in May, where they provide several examples of how this bidding system would have worked if it had been in place last year. For Heeney, they show the Swans using four picks, and all four picks then getting moved back.

I guess in reality it doesn't make a difference either way. Not too many clubs are still drafting players in round 6 or 7.

[DamY]

Draft crop could be the smallest on record - AFL.com.au

Although clubs such as the Lions, Swans and Greater Western Sydney have stocked up on picks to accrue more points to pay for northern academy prospects in the new bidding system, not every pick will be assigned to a player.

For instance, the Lions hold five straight selections from No.38-42, but they might only enter the draft with four open list spots.

The picks will remain so they can match early bids on academy pair Ben Keays and Eric Hipwood. If that happens and the leftover selections are shifted to the end of the draft, they will disappear if the Lions don't have list spots available.

For the first time, the draft order will change during the night as bids on father-son and academy prospects are matched.

Because the northern clubs are expected to part with multiple picks to pay for their academy picks, other clubs' selections will be brought forward.

[Ludwig]

Draft crop could be the smallest on record - AFL.com.au

Although clubs such as the Lions, Swans and Greater Western Sydney have stocked up on picks to accrue more points to pay for northern academy prospects in the new bidding system, not every pick will be assigned to a player.

For instance, the Lions hold five straight selections from No.38-42, but they might only enter the draft with four open list spots.

The picks will remain so they can match early bids on academy pair Ben Keays and Eric Hipwood. If that happens and the leftover selections are shifted to the end of the draft, they will disappear if the Lions don't have list spots available.

For the first time, the draft order will change during the night as bids on father-son and academy prospects are matched.

Because the northern clubs are expected to part with multiple picks to pay for their academy picks, other clubs' selections will be brought forward.

I guess this settles the issue about the number of picks a club can bring to the draft. Ugg2 turns our to be correct. It was the only logical way to do things. Even the incompetent group running the AFL couldn't have created the mess that the Ugg1 scenario would have brought.

On another matter, assuming we nominate Dunks and he accepts, there is a real possibility that we will have a live pick in the mid 30s even after drafting Mills. If Dunkley's name is called out before that pick, then the matching picks will flow, but if not, would we use a pick in the 30s to pick up another player and then our remaining picks to match a subsequent Dunkley bid? And should we leave a slot open for that possibility? The best way to handle that, assuming we don't delist Marsh, is to delist Derickx and redraft him as a rookie. If we are left with an extra slot to fill we could elevate Newman.