Lets hope other clubs play fair because what goes around, comes around..
Port made us use pick 10 when they put up pick 8 for Daniher…
Port’s bid was pretty close to our first pick. Under the new rule, we’d actually come out slightly ahead on the Daniher pick. The discount we’d get on matching pick 8 is worth less than our pick 10. End result would be Joe and pick ~60 for pick 10.
What’s interesting is when you have a late pick and are trying to match an early pick. That’s when a club will pass on the kid because they just don’t have enough value to match. It makes it much less likely for a club to bid on a kid just to screw with someone. The chances are, if you bid overs then the F/S club will just throw up their hands and give up.
Lets hope other clubs play fair because what goes around, comes around..
Port made us use pick 10 when they put up pick 8 for Daniher…
What’s interesting is when you have a late pick and are trying to match an early pick. That’s when a club will pass on the kid because they just don’t have enough value to match. It makes it much less likely for a club to bid on a kid just to screw with someone. The chances are, if you bid overs then the F/S club will just throw up their hands and give up.
Has this ever actually happened?
If a club bids ‘overs’ then they’re obliged to pay overs, I can’t think of any time it’s ever happened.
Lets hope other clubs play fair because what goes around, comes around..
Port made us use pick 10 when they put up pick 8 for Daniher…
What’s interesting is when you have a late pick and are trying to match an early pick. That’s when a club will pass on the kid because they just don’t have enough value to match. It makes it much less likely for a club to bid on a kid just to screw with someone. The chances are, if you bid overs then the F/S club will just throw up their hands and give up.
Has this ever actually happened?
If a club bids ‘overs’ then they’re obliged to pay overs, I can’t think of any time it’s ever happened.
It’s really impossible to say because nobody’s ever failed to match a bid. The closest it’s got to that, I think, was when GWS threatened to bid their first pick on Viney and basically blackmailed Melbourne into the Hogan trade.
I dunno, I just see it as a bit of a needless, pre-emptive reaction.
Clubs are taking a gamble if (I won’t say when) they make that sort of bid.
But that sort of (not exactly the same) gambling is inherent in the draft - you back yourself that a kid you like will get through to your next pick rather than taking them as soon as you can.
Son says “sure, go ahead and draft me. I’ll be back at the Bombers in 2 years, after a few pre-seasons, thanks”.
There will be a club at some stage that encourages this.
Just chooses to let the kid go to the opposition club. The clubs live pick effectively moves up one spot. Kid gets two years development at opposition club. Walks to desired club at end of two year contract.
Someone, someday, will do this.
Hell, you could argue that the Adelaide clubs are already doing it.
I don’t have an issue with the much higher weight being given to early picks. History shows they are far more certain things, and far better players on average. And I don’t mind having the idea that if you’re getting a much better player (e.g. Heeney) than your pick you have to give up something besides. My major issues are:
That it paves the way for trading of future picks which will be stuffed up at some point
That F/S picks should be given a greater discount. Over time, they are totally random who gets them so it shouldn't matter what the benefit is - all clubs should benefit. The two keys are that the rule shouldn't be changed so that when a team's turn comes around they have the same cost as teams who had a go before them, and obviously you need interim rules for new clubs so they aren't penalised.
This makes it a lot harder to take multiple F/S options who are any good. Which is a real shame since fans love F/S's coming through.
The idea of academy/zone areas for any club is ridiculous. Financially strong clubs can invest in their zones for talent identification and development. Whoever is linked to St Kilda is farked as a kid. I can understand wanting to push NSW kids through the NSW clubs (and for Queensland), but there are fairer ways to do it. That said, I'm all for academies - they should just be AFL run. But from what I've read the U18 system could be improved in heaps of ways if the AFL would spend more money on it.
Why not link the discount on F/S to achievements? Someone who plays less than 50 games gets a 5% discount, 50 to 99 games a 10% discount, 20% from there on, with bonus 5% discount if they win a club goal kicking or best & fairest (premierships are out since that benefits only some teams)
Son says “sure, go ahead and draft me. I’ll be back at the Bombers in 2 years, after a few pre-seasons, thanks”.
There will be a club at some stage that encourages this.
Just chooses to let the kid go to the opposition club. The clubs live pick effectively moves up one spot. Kid gets two years development at opposition club. Walks to desired club at end of two year contract.
Someone, someday, will do this.
Hell, you could argue that the Adelaide clubs are already doing it.
The issue with ‘doing a wingard’ is
A) being essendon, we’d get done for draft tampering
B) going home to Adelaide is not really the same as going home to Melbourne where a player has to somehow get past 8 other clubs to land at his preferred destination
Why not link the discount on F/S to achievements? Someone who plays less than 50 games gets a 5% discount, 50 to 99 games a 10% discount, 20% from there on, with bonus 5% discount if they win a club goal kicking or best & fairest (premierships are out since that benefits only some teams)
That would be awesome: when we select Max and Mason, we’d be given the #1 pick as a bonus.