Draft 2016

[707]

On the VFL website a few moments ago - as expected the VFL (read Eddie here) are looking to close the loophole that saw us, GWS and Brisbane trade early picks for a bunch of later picks that gave the northern clubs more ND points to use on Academy and F/S selections.

I must admit that whilst I really thought it was clever trading within the rules, it did give the northern clubs opportunities that the other clubs didn't have, albeit a number of those clubs benefitted from gaining earlier selections from the northern clubs.

Needless to say, the example the VFL use in their article is Callum Mills, just like Heeney was the previous year.

Being able to trade picks last year and getting Heeney for pick 18 the previous year were benefits to us but they were negated by the disgraceful trade ban.

The VFL will definitely make the changes flagged but it won't affect us this year with no academy prospects on the radar and it's unlikely to hurt GWS as they just keep trading out surplus players for additional high draft picks.

[Conor_Dillon]

This is absolutely farcical...this so called 'loop-hole' was something that benefited just about every club in some way or another. All of the trades were obviously mutually beneficial otherwise they wouldn't have gone ahead.

[ScottH]

They won't be happy until we are wooden spooners again.

[aguy]

What the proposed changes do regarding picks in the same round and losing the discount does is totally remove any incentive for the northern clubs to invest any money in the academies as there is basically no return on them.

I think the swans and all the northern clubs have basically been screwed over here. We have invested heavily in academy players over the last two years. Yes we have gotten Heeney and mills but we've also been excluded from trading high end players and we've taken lower draft picks only as other players ( plus the other academy boys hiscox and abe neither of whom I think will play afl). It is a big big worry for the quality of the list going forward and we are already starting to see it on the field.

The only hope I see for us not dropping down the the bottom 8 is that a couple of our recent lower draft picks come good at afl level ( eg hewett Dawson Papley) and a few of the current played really step up. Naismith hopefully can get his body right too because he just may be ok.

There is a large large contingent of list cloggers now on our list. I could name them but that may be a little unfair.

It's time for a big clean out. This will be Longmires legacy the rise or fall of the post Roos Swans

[Levii3]

In other actual good news Academy turns the tables - sydneyswans.com.au

[Ludwig]

I thought the academy clubs trading down helped facilitate several trades that otherwise might have been difficult. It seemed equally good for academy and non-academy clubs. I don't think it's a big deal. The academy clubs will just be more restricted in trading high picks for players in the same year that highly rated academy players are also available, but the trend will be to use more picks on academy players anyway.

There should be something to counterbalance the 'Cam McCarthy' factor. Perhaps if a player wants to go home the acquiring club should be forced too put up a minimum of draft points equal to the amount of points used originally draft the player if a trade agreement cannot be reached between the clubs. Such as, if Freo want McCarthy they have to give the Giants a minimum of a pick 14 in a kind of system similar to the 'payment' system the academy clubs go through to draft academy players.

[MattW]

The trading for points did look a little ugly, but entirely foreseeable and a product of the AFL's system. It's on the AFL to anticipate this eventuality - plenty of others did.

I am not a massive fan of the system. It does create different currencies in the trading period - a pick valued as points and a pick valued for the order in the draft you can use it - which can make it difficult to measure equal worth when those two currencies are involved in a trade. It also makes it difficult for people to follow. But as people have said, it facilitated deals and every club involved in a trade thinks they are benefitting from the trade.

I'm not surprised they are trying to do something about it, but penalising clubs who are trading for points is certainly not the answer because the issue is not unfair advantage, but a flawed system.

[Meg]

In any case, as the points system is supposedly based on draft 'value' as measured by player salaries (and many of us were suspicious about the rigour of this valuation), then the points index should be updated every year adding in the latest salaries. But to date I've not read that this will be done.

[Ludwig]

In any case, as the points system is supposedly based on draft 'value' as measured by player salaries (and many of us were suspicious about the rigour of this valuation), then the points index should be updated every year adding in the latest salaries. But to date I've not read that this will be done.

The system was specifically designed to be as costly as possible for us to get Mills and Dunkley. Now that has passed without really much effect and we don't have any top end players in our academy this year. So now the AFL are at a loss as to how to rejig the system to our detriment because they don't have a target to shoot at. They probably don't know if they should update the value curve, since it is not obvious if it will help or hurt us.

[Mug Punter]

I thought the academy clubs trading down helped facilitate several trades that otherwise might have been difficult. It seemed equally good for academy and non-academy clubs. I don't think it's a big deal. The academy clubs will just be more restricted in trading high picks for players in the same year that highly rated academy players are also available, but the trend will be to use more picks on academy players anyway.

There should be something to counterbalance the 'Cam McCarthy' factor. Perhaps if a player wants to go home the acquiring club should be forced too put up a minimum of draft points equal to the amount of points used originally draft the player if a trade agreement cannot be reached between the clubs. Such as, if Freo want McCarthy they have to give the Giants a minimum of a pick 14 in a kind of system similar to the 'payment' system the academy clubs go through to draft academy players.

I think the trading for points issue is a non issue as there was clearly a willing partner to the transaction in terms of the other clubs who won't now be able to trade for picks with us if we have no incentive to do so.

I think that the original idea was that draft picks would stay static and picks would just move as a result and I think that worked OK so I'm not overly worried and I don't think we'll be overly disadvantaged.

But it is a joke that Gillon is just being tied in knots by the demands of his handmaidens in Eddie and the like, it really is a knee-jerk reaction.

The next war will be on GWS and I'm afraid in this one I'll be on Eddie's side. We and the Lions are working our patch trying as hard as we can to actually develop new talent and GWS are able to recruit blokes that not only have not been playing TAC Cup but have been at Melbourne Grammar for at least their last two years of school. How is that possible?

My big fear is that we will lose a big chunk of our zone to GWS and that they will then neglect that area.

[Auntie.Gerald]

In other actual good news Academy turns the tables - sydneyswans.com.au

i suspect not many of the Riverina based players from the GWS academies down south would have been present ?

the sydney based GWS academy players don't seem much chop yet

[707]

Has GWS actually done anything in western Sydney yet? It's what they were created for but since day one they seem to have just kept drifting further east.

Hopefully a couple of our U18s become draft worthy as like an earlier poster I feel we are starting to accumulate a few list cloggers. 2016 is a big year for these players to either rise or be cut.

[Scottee]

I thought the academy clubs trading down helped facilitate several trades that otherwise might have been difficult. It seemed equally good for academy and non-academy clubs. I don't think it's a big deal. The academy clubs will just be more restricted in trading high picks for players in the same year that highly rated academy players are also available, but the trend will be to use more picks on academy players anyway.

There should be something to counterbalance the 'Cam McCarthy' factor. Perhaps if a player wants to go home the acquiring club should be forced too put up a minimum of draft points equal to the amount of points used originally draft the player if a trade agreement cannot be reached between the clubs. Such as, if Freo want McCarthy they have to give the Giants a minimum of a pick 14 in a kind of system similar to the 'payment' system the academy clubs go through to draft academy players.

It's not a loophole, trading picks is a fundamental part of the system. The points system was supposed to provide flexibility and increase the costs for the expansion clubs if they have multiple top picks from the academies & fs ( read Mills and Dunkley). Thereby ensuring that a perceived domination of the competition by the expansion clubs could not occur. It completely overlooks the fact that the academies only produce lots of top picks for one club, and that was by the AFLs own design. Eddie is a failed administrator who shoots from the hip and he is a danger to the competition as a whole.

[dimelb]

Our people and our northern allies are on the job:

Brisbane Lions, Sydney Swans warn against 'kneejerk' changes to draft bidding system

[707]

Love the comment that some Vic clubs were "asleep at the wheel"! The point is well made that deals like Carlisle to St.Kilda may not have got over the line except for our involvement.

Also love Pridham's tweet in response to Eddie's new Melb stadium idea, Andrew just keeps quietly scoring points :-)