Is it already Killing Season 2016 (List Management) after 2 rounds

[Mug Punter]

20% 25% 12% no % is the same argument for me. The picks are given a nominal points value so I don't see what difference it makes in principle.

Looking at our case vs Gws, the discount applied was seen as trivial for Mills and a shortsighted move as you point out. Looking through the same lense I don't see that discount having any relevance as to whether or not Gws is entitled to the Riverina.

Are you serious?

The discount is the return on all ten effort and cost to make the system worthwhile. If there's no discount the AFL should fund the whole bloody thing.

For example using all our picks the highest we can go without giving up future points is about 6. With a discount it is really only pick 1 where that happens and only if you finish top 4.

The discount and Riverina are not related but the Riverina issue is feeding a lot of the anti academy noise. Actually I agree with Ludwig and say the areas I really object to are the Victoria border towns. I accept there may be a code war in Wagga but there ain't one in albury as that is where SIX GWS academy kids in the under 16 team come from

[Industrial Fan]

Yes, serious.
The discount is applied to a purely nominal points system. If it's a 20% reduction maybe it was 80% to begin with.

But also my other point is that we viewed the discount for mills as a token gesture. It didn't seem enough reward for putting him through the academy and putting $ into him. At the end of the day he's on our list and that's the most critical thing.

If you view the gws academy from the same point of view I just don't see how them having a discount is a big deal.

[Ludwig]

Yes, serious.
The discount is applied to a purely nominal points system. If it's a 20% reduction maybe it was 80% to begin with.

It's anything but a nominal points system. The discount directly translates into draft picks and which ones they are.

To give a real example, because of the discount on Callum Mills we were able to save 446 value points. This ended up giving us 2 picks in the 50s which we used to get Leonardis and Dawson. Both look good prospects at this point. Without the discount our next pick would have been near the end of the draft and may well have lost them.

[Maltopia]

First of all the discount is 20%, not 25%.

The issues surrounding the academies are complex and for the AFL it's a matter of finding the right balance between what goes into running an academy and what the club gets out of it. Furthermore, the 4 academy clubs each have their own respective particulars which makes it difficult to find a formula that encompasses the 4 as a group.

Without any discount, but allowing first access to an academy player would be of some benefit, particularly for a team that finishes high on the ladder and has a star prospect in the draft. The current bidding system was designed to make Sydney pay as much as possible for Callum Mills after the uproar over getting Heeney for what some thought was too cheap. If it were Brisbane with a Heeney and Mills in successive years, there wouldn't have been an issue.

In addition, the GWS and GC academies partially offsets these clubs' lack of access to any father-son picks for the next two decades or so. Sydney and Brisbane arguably also have less father and son picks being northern clubs where the go-home factor means players are less likely to have played 100 games, or want to stay in Melbourne (e.g., Dunkley, and speculating that Chris Judd's sons will prefer Carlton in 15-20 years time).

20% 25% 12% no % is the same argument for me. The picks are given a nominal points value so I don't see what difference it makes in principle.

Looking at our case vs Gws, the discount applied was seen as trivial for Mills and a shortsighted move as you point out. Looking through the same lense I don't see that discount having any relevance as to whether or not Gws is entitled to the Riverina.

The Mills discount of 20%, was worth something. Without that 20% discount, we would have had slip even further down with our subsequent picks and not gotten Leonardis and Dawson, and (haven't checked the points) even possibly not had any live picks at all after getting Mills. Whether all four clubs require the same 20% discount is also debatable. I think you could quieten down some of the Riverina related noise by allowing GWS to keep access to players who have been in their academy, but not give any discount so they pay the same full (nominal) value that other clubs do when they match with points.

[Industrial Fan]

It's anything but a nominal points system. The discount directly translates into draft picks and which ones they are.

To give a real example, because of the discount on Callum Mills we were able to save 446 value points. This ended up giving us 2 picks in the 50s which we used to get Leonardis and Dawson. Both look good prospects at this point. Without the discount our next pick would have been near the end of the draft and may well have lost them.

Not really sure if I'm not being clear or if you just disagree but my point is the value of those picks is determined by the afl along with the discount. It's the same principle as a shop discounting something to sell it for the same price they wanted to sell it for in the first place.

So the pick values aren't based on anything real, they are nominal. Whatever discount is applied still ends up with the afl intended. What is pick 50 worth aside from the fact that there are 49 before it? 300 points? Less 20% discount, great!

Who decided it was worth 300 and not 240?

[Ludwig]

Not really sure if I'm not being clear or if you just disagree but my point is the value of those picks is determined by the afl along with the discount. It's the same principle as a shop discounting something to sell it for the same price they wanted to sell it for in the first place.

So the pick values aren't based on anything real, they are nominal. Whatever discount is applied still ends up with the afl intended. What is pick 50 worth aside from the fact that there are 49 before it? 300 points? Less 20% discount, great!

Who decided it was worth 300 and not 240?

Perhaps your point was misunderstood because there was a very long discussion about the value points bidding system at the time it was introduced. It was ostensibly based on the relative salaries of players picked with a particular draft number. It has some basis in an AFL-McGuire dreamworld kind of reality, but now that the system is in place the fairness of the system has become a moot point. Everyone has moved on, because we have no choice (It's sort of like an umpiring decision).

[dimelb]

Not really sure if I'm not being clear or if you just disagree but my point is the value of those picks is determined by the afl along with the discount. It's the same principle as a shop discounting something to sell it for the same price they wanted to sell it for in the first place.

So the pick values aren't based on anything real, they are nominal. Whatever discount is applied still ends up with the afl intended. What is pick 50 worth aside from the fact that there are 49 before it? 300 points? Less 20% discount, great!

Who decided it was worth 300 and not 240?

Yes, the value of the picks is set by the AFL, inspired by and partly modelled on the US trading system. You can say they are nominal in the sense that it is an artificially constructed system. The value of EACH CHOICE is set by the clubs' bidding, which is decided by the usual voodoo (talent scouts, playing stats, size, speed etc.) about the worth of any player.

The discount is another matter. The 20% may be arbitrary (it could be 25% or 50% or whatever) but it makes a real, not arbitrary, difference to the number of points we spend on any given player, as spelled out by Ludwig's example of Callum Mills. It bears no relation whatsoever to a shop's discount because the pick can be a genuine bargain; the club really is paying less than they would otherwise have had to pay.

[Cosmic Wizard]

Not really sure if I'm not being clear or if you just disagree but my point is the value of those picks is determined by the afl along with the discount. It's the same principle as a shop discounting something to sell it for the same price they wanted to sell it for in the first place.

So the pick values aren't based on anything real, they are nominal. Whatever discount is applied still ends up with the afl intended. What is pick 50 worth aside from the fact that there are 49 before it? 300 points? Less 20% discount, great!

Who decided it was worth 300 and not 240?

Agree with this; give all the clubs x amount of points and allow them to bid on any player.

Each club of course would have different number of points depending on where they finished on the ladder

i.e. hawthorn could bid for the number one player, and be match by anyone.

They may not have any picks after that, but if they what to put all their eggs in one basket, so be it.

Fair and a lot more exciting

[The Big Cat]

The point about it all is that if the AFL funded the academies then two things would happen. It would be open slather with Sydney having no more access to the academy kids than any other club. Heeney would now be at St Kilda and Mills at the Blues. (Or both at Melbourne - thanks for nothing Roosy). Secondly, the number and probable quality of the kids would diminish if a clear pathway to the Swans was not ensured if they were good enough to be drafted.

The Key factor is having first option to recruit the player. The last two years I think have been an anomaly. The best kid in the land has been a Swans academy player and this combined with our low position in the draft has created a situation where we need big points when we only have a small number of them in the bag (a position I like incidentally). It is likely that in the future our best academy prospect may be around pick 15 or later and if we are further down the ladder we will have points to burn.

As someone has mentioned above, Melbourne Clubs have been spooked by the best kids going to the Swans when Sydney are perennial finalist (an had earlier outsmarted everyone to get Tippett and Franklin).

I don't think you'll hear Eddie screaming about discounts if they relate to Father Son picks because suddenly young Daicos and Gavin Brown's boy are looking the goods. This at a time when Collingwood sold the farm to get Treloar and have bugger-all draft picks this year.

[dejavoodoo44]

The point about it all is that if the AFL funded the academies then two things would happen. It would be open slather with Sydney having no more access to the academy kids than any other club. Heeney would now be at St Kilda and Mills at the Blues. (Or both at Melbourne - thanks for nothing Roosy). Secondly, the number and probable quality of the kids would diminish if a clear pathway to the Swans was not ensured if they were good enough to be drafted.

The Key factor is having first option to recruit the player. The last two years I think have been an anomaly. The best kid in the land has been a Swans academy player and this combined with our low position in the draft has created a situation where we need big points when we only have a small number of them in the bag (a position I like incidentally). It is likely that in the future our best academy prospect may be around pick 15 or later and if we are further down the ladder we will have points to burn.

As someone has mentioned above, Melbourne Clubs have been spooked by the best kids going to the Swans when Sydney are perennial finalist (an had earlier outsmarted everyone to get Tippett and Franklin).

I don't think you'll hear Eddie screaming about discounts if they relate to Father Son picks because suddenly young Daicos and Gavin Brown's boy are looking the goods. This at a time when Collingwood sold the farm to get Treloar and have bugger-all draft picks this year.

Well said. And I also expect that the Victorian clubs may want a discount for any Victorian multicultural kids or any NT kids that they've been granted access to.

[Flying South]

According to Damien Barrerr on AFL..com "NORTH Melbourne's bid to re-contract Mason Wood has been set back, with the Sydney Swans making a big play for the young gun forward.

It is believed the Swans' offer for the 22-year-old is up to $500,000 a season and would see him a permanent part of a forward line alongside Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett.

Prior to injuring his knee on the weekend, Wood had played the last five consecutive matches for the Kangaroos.

It is seen as good money for a player with 16 career games, but a deal the Swans can afford with the likely exit of Ted Richards and the strong possibility that Tom Mitchell will accept an offer from Hawthorn."

I can't see North giving up Wood easily and what could we trade to get him. I do rate him though

[CureTheSane]

But now we have Ted in the forward line....

[Ludwig]

According to Damien Barrerr on AFL..com "NORTH Melbourne's bid to re-contract Mason Wood has been set back, with the Sydney Swans making a big play for the young gun forward.

It is believed the Swans' offer for the 22-year-old is up to $500,000 a season and would see him a permanent part of a forward line alongside Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett.

Prior to injuring his knee on the weekend, Wood had played the last five consecutive matches for the Kangaroos.

It is seen as good money for a player with 16 career games, but a deal the Swans can afford with the likely exit of Ted Richards and the strong possibility that Tom Mitchell will accept an offer from Hawthorn."

I can't see North giving up Wood easily and what could we trade to get him. I do rate him though

I can see us making a play for Wood and offering around the same money we would probably have to give Tom Mitchell. If the Wood deal is for real, then Mitchell is surely gone. Both deals will probably involve draft picks, and I would think that we would come out with a bit extra in that regard.

I think Wood is a good pick up if we can get him. He's very talented and would be a good compliment for Franklin and Tippett as a 3rd tall option. He's and excellent mark and kick and good contested ball winner as well. The end result is a player swap that re-balances our team which is strong in midfield, but light on KPPs. Reid can play as a defender, if and when he's ever fit enough to play. Some will argue otherwise, but I feel Reid is better suited to CHB than forward.

You have to wonder where these journos get these stories from, but you've got to figure there is some basis to it since the journo's reputation is on the line. Some are wrong, but so many turn out to be true. In this case you've got 2 good young players that haven't signed yet with their existing clubs, so something must be going on. NM will surely be going into decline with so many aging players and they aren't quite up to challenging for the flag this year. It would be attractive for a player like Wood to move to Sydney for the opportunity to win a premiership, besides the money factor.

[707]

Manager needs to pump up their clients value in contract negotiations - float the "Swans are very interested at big money" and suddenly the rails are greased to a smoother new contract. Been used dozens of times in the past.

Also notice "Mitchell is likely to accept Hawthorn's offer" in the article.

This is not how we have got key players in the past, it's usually late breaking news but Mason Wood could be a good pick up, he knows how to tell the time :-)

[longmile]

Not sure about this alleged trade.
Do we really need Mason Wood and Reid?
It's hard enough fitting Reid in structurally when our best 22 is fully fit.
I'd rather keep Mitchell if we can afford it