AFL Draft Requirements

[Mug Punter]

I've asked a few times on here what our minimum requirements re drafting are and not really got an adequate answer so I've done some research of my own via the official AFL Rules Document

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL%20Rules%20-%202015.pdf

Sections that stand out for me are as follows

6.2 Procedure for National Draft Selection Meeting
(d) Number of Draft Selections
(i) At a National Draft Selection Meeting:
(A) each Club shall exercise a minimum of 3 Draft selections (including selections forfeited under Rules 0, 10.11(b), 12.4(b), 13.4(b) and 14.4(d)); and
(B) no Club may exercise more than 3 Draft selections if the consequence would be that it would exceed the number of Players which it is entitled to include on its Primary List pursuant to these Rules.

10.11 Inclusion of Rookie List Player onto Primary List
(b) Primary List
A Club may apply to the AFL to transfer a Player or Players from its Rookie List onto its Primary List:
(i) on the day when its Primary List is lodged with the AFL prior to the National Draft Selection Meeting under Rule 6.1 by lodging with the AFL the form prescribed in Schedule 1 as Form 33. In which case, the Club shall forfeit its last selection or, if more than one player, its last and each previous draft selection at the National AFL Draft Selection meeting.
62
(ii) under Rule 26.1(b); or
(iii) at any time between the National Draft Selection Meeting and the day when its Primary List is lodged with the AFL prior to the Pre-Season Draft Selection Meeting under Rule 7.1, if a Player?s name has been deleted from that Club?s List under Rule 7.6 by lodging with the AFL the form prescribed in Schedule 1 as Form 33.

So,
10.11(b) relates to elevated rookies
12.4(b) relates to scholarship lists
13.4(b) relates to international list
14.4(d) relates to academy players

So, my reading of the AFL rules is that we need to have three minimum picks and that clearly includes any rookie upgrades.

So, what is there here that would preclude us from only taking one open draft pick or maybe none at all and merely upgrading four rookies?


FWIW I think that would be an unlikely scenario as I think we'd keep Colin on the rookie list another year with as there'd be bound to be an upgrade opportunity. But we could well trade our first rounder for a KPD, take our second round, upgrade three and delist five...

[Auntie.Gerald]

hey MP

i suppose we can merge on this thread who we let go of ?

i.e. it comes down to who you would be prefer to let go from the current list vs trades vs draft

Kinnear alluded to in his interview we are still interested in KP defenders i.e. he keeps his cards close to his chest and didn't rule it out

Snrs =

Derex
McGlynn?
Teddy?
Macca?

Rookie =

Murray?
Melican?

[Mug Punter]

hey MP

i suppose we can merge on this thread who we let go of ?

i.e. it comes down to who you would be prefer to let go from the current list vs trades vs draft

Kinnear alluded to in his interview we are still interested in KP defenders i.e. he keeps his cards close to his chest and didn't rule it out

Snrs =

Derex
McGlynn?
Teddy?
Macca?

Rookie =

Murray?
Melican?

My main query was re what our draft obligations are as I think we'll be looking at least two upgrades and maybe three and we may also look at trading a first rounder for a KPD. We've never been afraid of thinking outside the box before re our trading but if we need the three external picks it means we have to de-list a heap and I can't see us doing this.

FWIWI think we'll delist Tom Dx, Xav and AJ and that Ted will retire.

If we look at getting four in (three upgrades and a KPD) then we could do this with the three upgrades (based on my reading of the AFL Rules) and trade our draft picks for either a KPD or a KPD and future draft picks and points.

But if we want to also go to the draft and tae at least one new kid (as I suspect we will) then we'll need to de-list or trade at least one additional player, again possibly for a future pick. Towers would seem at risk here.

It's testament to our growing depth that we've seen such an explosion of talengt who we've been quietly developing over the last few years and the fact we could conceivably have four players being worthy of an upgrade (I think we'll keep Colin in the rookie for another year but that he'll play senior footy in 2017) makes for a potentially unusual trading position

[Ludwig]

If you have 1 or more rookie upgrades then you are not required to take 3 picks in the ND, but still must take a minimum of 2. I've not been able to find this regulation anywhere, but believe it to be the case. I think there are regulations that are not published for the general public. Even the details of the bidding system are presented in a form for public consumption rather than in a regulatory framework that we can access. There seems to be any number of regulations that fall into this category. The expert in these matters is Meg. Hopefully she can shed some light on this.

I don't think we will trade our 1st round pick this year. Personally, I would give our 2nd rounder plus Towers to GC for Jack Leslie, or just our second rounder for Jeremy Finlayson. GWS will likely have 5 selections in the top 20-25 picks including the best KPP in the draft. There should be a couple of decent defenders available around our 1st pick. Jack Scrimshaw would be the highest rated and Jarrrod Kerowha, who trained for a week with us in January also looks a likely type (reminds me a bit of Nick Haynes who I rated highly).

The situation with AJ and his surgery makes our situation even more unclear, but we should have a better idea as to his chances of playing on when these list decisions are made. I also like the looks of Melican and if he continues his progress I think he will be given a 3rd year on our rookie list. He's still only 19 and he missed virtually all of last year, so he's just getting going now. He's quite quick for someone 194cm. He can stay with his man, but needs to learn the techniques of spoiling. I think he's a good prospect.

Although I think a KPD is our top priority, it's more because we seem to have all the other bases well covered. But I don't think our situation is all that dire with Talia, Aliir, Davis and Melican all showing good signs for the future. I'm less optimistic about XR and think he will be delisted.

[Mug Punter]

If you have 1 or more rookie upgrades then you are not required to take 3 picks in the ND, but still must take a minimum of 2. I've not been able to find this regulation anywhere, but believe it to be the case. I think there are regulations that are not published for the general public. Even the details of the bidding system are presented in a form for public consumption rather than in a regulatory framework that we can access. There seems to be any number of regulations that fall into this category. The expert in these matters is Meg. Hopefully she can shed some light on this.

I don't think we will trade our 1st round pick this year. Personally, I would give our 2nd rounder plus Towers to GC for Jack Leslie, or just our second rounder for Jeremy Finlayson. GWS will likely have 5 selections in the top 20-25 picks including the best KPP in the draft. There should be a couple of decent defenders available around our 1st pick. Jack Scrimshaw would be the highest rated and Jarrrod Kerowha, who trained for a week with us in January also looks a likely type (reminds me a bit of Nick Haynes who I rated highly).

The situation with AJ and his surgery makes our situation even more unclear, but we should have a better idea as to his chances of playing on when these list decisions are made. I also like the looks of Melican and if he continues his progress I think he will be given a 3rd year on our rookie list. He's still only 19 and he missed virtually all of last year, so he's just getting going now. He's quite quick for someone 194cm. He can stay with his man, but needs to learn the techniques of spoiling. I think he's a good prospect.

Although I think a KPD is our top priority, it's more because we seem to have all the other bases well covered. But I don't think our situation is all that dire with Talia, Aliir, Davis and Melican all showing good signs for the future. I'm less optimistic about XR and think he will be delisted.

This is what Adelaide and Port Adelaide did last year (2 drafts and 1 rookie upgrade) - your understanding makes sense but I would have thought it would be in black and white in the AFL Regulations I have quoted and from what I can read there is nothing to say why we can't take less one or zero ND picks direct.

Not sure if Towers plus a second rounder would get us the quality we need to be quite honest. Geelong paid a first rounder for Lachie Henderson and I reckon that would be about the going rate and also the calibre of player we would want and could afford.

You look at the numbers and our squad depth and something has to give, especially if AJ's surgery is a success which we all desperately hope it is. Towers is looking increasingly at risk because I just can't see us wanting to release anyone else. With Xav, Dx, Ted and Towers then based on your analysis we have to take 2, need a KPD and will only be able to upgrade one player which is clearly not sufficient. If AJ does not make it then we probably have to choose between Newman and Marsh assuming Papley definitely goes up. Hiscox would be the solution but I think as an academy player we give him three years.

Interesting times, and looking at our list the concerns we all had about depth three months ago seem quite silly now

[Meg]

" The expert in these matters is Meg. Hopefully she can shed some light on this."

Meg is sitting in the Barbican Centre in London with a glass of red, having just seen a fascinating multi-media, anti-war theatre production. I've got all my AFL laws etc. bookmarked on my home computer and am not sure on the answer without looking it up. Somehow I think each club must take two picks but I'm not sure. If you haven't confirmed the answer I'll do some research after I get home in 4 weeks! Great win Fri. Night by the way, I'm sad I missed it.

[Ludwig]

Interesting times, and looking at our list the concerns we all had about depth three months ago seem quite silly now

I always thought our depth was pretty good, but I didn't expect some of them to come good so soon, nor did I expect a Papley or some of the other lower draft picks to show so much promise. It's our performance this year which has surprised me.

I would let Hiscox go. I can't see him getting the skills and grunt to ever make the team. I think his contract expires this year. I would give Foote a much better chance of making it to AFL level than Hiscox.

As a practical matter, it doesn't make sense to go after an established KPD. We simply won't have the cap space and it's more important to lock down Mitchell and Hewett. We only need 2 true KPDs because Laidler and Rampe can play tall as well. Reg and Talia will fill those spots for the next couple of years. Also only one of Reid or Davis can fit in the forward line, so the other will probably have to play in defence. I've suggested that we go after Leslie or Finlayson because they are down in the queue at their clubs for senior spots and may want out. GC and GWS both need points for high bid academy players this year. It probably won't happen and we'll go to the draft and hope for the best.

[Mug Punter]

I always thought our depth was pretty good, but I didn't expect some of them to come good so soon, nor did I expect a Papley or some of the other lower draft picks to show so much promise. It's our performance this year which has surprised me.

I would let Hiscox go. I can't see him getting the skills and grunt to ever make the team. I think his contract expires this year. I would give Foote a much better chance of making it to AFL level than Hiscox.

As a practical matter, it doesn't make sense to go after an established KPD. We simply won't have the cap space and it's more important to lock down Mitchell and Hewett. We only need 2 true KPDs because Laidler and Rampe can play tall as well. Reg and Talia will fill those spots for the next couple of years. Also only one of Reid or Davis can fit in the forward line, so the other will probably have to play in defence. I've suggested that we go after Leslie or Finlayson because they are down in the queue at their clubs for senior spots and may want out. GC and GWS both need points for high bid academy players this year. It probably won't happen and we'll go to the draft and hope for the best.

Ted retiring would create some space but me may well need that to lock down Hewett and Mitchell. If that's the case then I'd go with what we have got and sign them up. I see Davis more as a big bodied mid, they don't seem to have quite worked out where he belongs but he's a keeper for sure. I'm looking forward to seeing a full ressies game on the 12th to get a better idea

GWS will be under some serious cap space of their figure of being $600,000 over is right but then again that deficit could be wiped out with change if the CBA kicks in at a higher rate. A player like Finlayson may be an option and a second round pick could give them the points they need

I think we need a second KPD but you may well be right, I guess how our defence goes over the rest of the season may determine our approach re a KPD. A more practical and definitely easier solution would be that Sam Reid will simply be sent down back permanently next year.

[rb4x]

It is there as copied below. Each club must make a minimum of three draft selections but a rookie upgrade may count as just one of those selections.
-
Season Draft.
(d)
Number of Draft Selections
(i)
At a National Draft Selection Meeting
:
(A)
each Club shall exercise a minimum of 3 Draft selection
s
(including selections forfeited under Rules
0
,
10.11(b)
,
12.4(b)
,
13.4(b)
and
14.4(d)
); and
(B)
no Club may exercise more than 3 Draft selections if the
consequence would be that it would exceed the number of
Players which it is entitled to include on its Primary List pursuant
to these Rul

[Doctor]

Ted retiring would create some space but me may well need that to lock down Hewett and Mitchell. If that's the case then I'd go with what we have got and sign them up. I see Davis more as a big bodied mid, they don't seem to have quite worked out where he belongs but he's a keeper for sure. I'm looking forward to seeing a full ressies game on the 12th to get a better idea

GWS will be under some serious cap space of their figure of being $600,000 over is right but then again that deficit could be wiped out with change if the CBA kicks in at a higher rate. A player like Finlayson may be an option and a second round pick could give them the points they need

I think we need a second KPD but you may well be right, I guess how our defence goes over the rest of the season may determine our approach re a KPD. A more practical and definitely easier solution would be that Sam Reid will simply be sent down back permanently next year.

The Giants will be fine. They'll trade McCarthy and Tomlinson at the very least.

[Mug Punter]

It is there as copied below. Each club must make a minimum of three draft selections but a rookie upgrade may count as just one of those selections.
-
Season Draft.
(d)
Number of Draft Selections
(i)
At a National Draft Selection Meeting
:
(A)
each Club shall exercise a minimum of 3 Draft selection
s
(including selections forfeited under Rules
0
,
10.11(b)
,
12.4(b)
,
13.4(b)
and
14.4(d)
); and
(B)
no Club may exercise more than 3 Draft selections if the
consequence would be that it would exceed the number of
Players which it is entitled to include on its Primary List pursuant
to these Rul

Sorry but that isn't the way it reads.

6.2 Procedure for National Draft Selection Meeting
(d) Number of Draft Selections
(i) At a National Draft Selection Meeting:
(A) each Club shall exercise a minimum of 3 Draft selections (including selections forfeited under Rules 0, 10.11(b), 12.4(b), 13.4(b) and 14.4(d)); and
(B) no Club may exercise more than 3 Draft selections if the consequence would be that it would exceed the number of Players which it is entitled to include on its Primary List pursuant to these Rules.
It says selections (as in plural) not selection.

I'm not being argumentative but I'm looking for something concrete in the AFL rules that says you have to take any particular number of your three draft selections direct from the draft and that you can't take one and upgrade two

- - - Updated - - -

The Giants will be fine. They'll trade McCarthy and Tomlinson at the very least.

And they'll get good currency for both of those kids.

On one hand they lose a bit of depth but the quality of what comes through is frightening

[Mug Punter]

Anyone able to explain from the reading of the AFL Rules why we cannot take one in the draft and upgrade three rookies?

[707]

There have been drafts in recent times where clubs have only had just two live selections and from memory just one live selection, maybe West Coast?

The intent of the rules are to make sure there is turnover on every list to stop clubs hoarding talent like they did in the old days. But the landscape has changed anyway with far more player generated movement. We've seen it ourselves where Biggs and Membrey basically left to seek greater opportunities.

I would think even the premier team would use at least their first two picks of 18 & 36 as there is still solid talent out that far. Once you get into the 40s it is more hit and miss so if you were sitting on solid rookies you'd probably upgrade to get your third list change rather than using pick 54.

GWS salary cap discussed earlier will be a non issue with the cap certain to be raised and another batch of players moving out for more opportunity, McCarthy and Tomlinson for certain, and good draft picks coming to the Giants to easily claim all those highly rated Riverina kids like McCreadie, Setterfield, Perryman etc

[bungwahl]

GWS salary cap discussed earlier will be a non issue with the cap certain to be raised and another batch of players moving out for more opportunity, McCarthy and Tomlinson for certain, and good draft picks coming to the Giants to easily claim all those highly rated Riverina kids like McCreadie, Setterfield, Perryman etc

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Assuming GWS had pre-signed all it's star players to long term contracts prior to the cap being raised, then yes they could afford to pay those contracts. For example the Swans would benefit with Buddy being on a long term deal that we could now more easily afford. However once the cap goes up other clubs will have larger war chests to chase the big names. The increased salary cap works both ways and effectively just lifts the salary expectations of gun players.

Obviously with GWS they have such a huge bank of talented players that they should be able to turn them over via trades to keep themselves at the top for at least the next decade.

[Mug Punter]

There have been drafts in recent times where clubs have only had just two live selections and from memory just one live selection, maybe West Coast?

The intent of the rules are to make sure there is turnover on every list to stop clubs hoarding talent like they did in the old days. But the landscape has changed anyway with far more player generated movement. We've seen it ourselves where Biggs and Membrey basically left to seek greater opportunities.

I would think even the premier team would use at least their first two picks of 18 & 36 as there is still solid talent out that far. Once you get into the 40s it is more hit and miss so if you were sitting on solid rookies you'd probably upgrade to get your third list change rather than using pick 54.

GWS salary cap discussed earlier will be a non issue with the cap certain to be raised and another batch of players moving out for more opportunity, McCarthy and Tomlinson for certain, and good draft picks coming to the Giants to easily claim all those highly rated Riverina kids like McCreadie, Setterfield, Perryman etc

You're quite right about a club taking it's first two round picks but I just have a feeling we may trade our first rounder this year and take a second rounder in the late 30s with two rookie upgrades. Assuming we can do this, and I see no reason from the AFL rules why we can't.

I think we'll be keen to keep the list at 38 and not 39 or 40 as it seems to work for us. That will mean we need to find four to de-list - think that X-R, Ted, TDx and Hiscox are the obvious choices but if Jack is kept on then I could possibly see us go to 39 for one year. I still reckon we may have to offer a player as a sweetener if we want a KPD of true quality and I think Deano probably is the only player with any appeal who isn't locked in 100% as a required player, even though I rate the guy personally

GWS just have a conveyer-belt of talent and I can see then decreasing their list by at least another two this year so if they want to draft four guns then they'll offload six and you can bet that at least four of then will have some serious trade value. I can see them getting Pick 1 plus three gun Riverina kids and three first rounders next year as they trade three players out for first round picks, it's just a matter of who but I'd say Tomlinson, Hoskin-Elliot, McCarthy and Marchbank are all worth first rounders. They would potentially be ruing not letting MCCarthy go but I think they had to draw a line in the sand there and I think they've dealt with it very well.