i thought that every club needs to take as many picks at the draft as they have in draft picks. to stop academy clubs using points from fourth round picks that they werent going to use.
maybe im wrong.
I like the idea of us taking a second chance on a player. Murray fits that criteria. Proven AFL player with the right guidance and culture could make best 22
1 Like
I’d like us to go to the draft and grab a bunch of 18yos (or 19yos at a stretch) rather than look at recycled guys (unless we get a shot at someone like Martin who we’d be really really sure would be best 15 (not even best 22) from day 1). We’ve spent so much draft currency trading over the past few years, it’s really skewed our list age profile. We’ve mostly gone for mid-career guys with the big trades rather than old guys at least, so it’s not as bad as it could be, but still, we’ve got a grand total of three players younger than 21 on our list, and two of them haven’t played a senior game. We have to be careful we don’t set ourselves up for a big age-group hole in our list profile in a few years.
Sure, we’d be picking with mediocre-late picks and there’s not even remotely a guarantee we’d find any players our of it, but that’s the nature of the beast.
9 Likes
Why aren’t we interested in Sam Murray?
I believe the way it works is that on draft day, whatever draft picks a team have get trimmed down to the number of draft spots they have available. So if a club has 5 senior list spots to fill and shows up with a big old bunch of picks like say 5,10,32,34,37,54,55,56,57,59,60, they would be allocated picks 5,10,32,34 and 37; the rest would disappear into the ether.
Subsequently, they might be in a position to only take three actual picks in the ND, and then take an extra two rookies (go 38/6 rather than 40/4). So I think there is a one or two pick loophole in that rule.
This would technically be a problem with the suns now that they have 10 rookie spots, they could go full late pick collecting, but “luckily” the AFL has sorted this out by allowing the suns to take their academy players without matching bids.
2 Likes
Are you saying they would be unable to live-trade or use for an academy/father-son picks 54,55,56,57,59,60? That’s silly. Especially if they match someone else’s pick with two picks and therefore end up with less picks than list slots!
Can’t kick, fumbles under pressure, and has a fondness for cocaine would be the reasons why I’d think.
3 Likes
Why would we be interested in Sam Murray? Rookie at Sydney, looks promising for a few games at Collingwood then gets dropped…then gets on the persians.
they get given picks back at the end of the draft.
2 Likes
An injury prone big bodied mid that can’t find enough of the ball?
Well apparently we were very interested up until the last few minutes
I hope it works out that he is not what we are looking for
Respected? He’s had some laughable opinions since joining the media. Rarely gets it correct.
Besides the fact that he calls himself a mediocre person, his position is the one area of the game we have covered. I rate Ridley and he can’t get a look in due to the depth in that area of the ground.
As it stands, we have 2 ND and 2 RD picks. I can’t see how it’s in our best interest to get a delisted free agent with the few picks we have.
I would be targeting areas of need such as inside mid, young ruck and lock down defender before picking rejects from other teams.
1 Like
Yes, that’s the point of the rule. Matching bids with picks a team couldn’t otherwise use means that the team is in effect not paying anything, which the AFL was not a fan of. At a guess not because they thought it was unfair, more because it made them look like chumps for coming up with such an easily exploitable system.
2 Likes
Hmm. Soooooo… if I live-trade a pick out for two picks, does the last pick I entered the draft with just disappear? Which may make the trade not of equivalent fairy dust weight?
And the other team, who traded out two picks for one better pick: are they forced to leave an empty spot on their main list, or does a pick at the end of the draft (probably but not necessarily worth zero fairy dust points) just get handed to them by the AFL?
Don’t know. The rule came in before live trading, and based on previous experience I’d guess the AFL didn’t really work through the edge cases. For example, they’ve already said the little switcheroo that sydney pulled last year to avoid matching a bid won’t be allowed any more, but just in a “we won’t let teams do it” way rather than a concrete rule.
2 Likes
Better yet… let’s day during normal trade “week” I swap pick A for picks B+C. This can be entirely legitimate: I want to trade for someone I think is worth pick B but not pick A. The AFL approve this trade.
But then my deal falls over (the other team is insulted by my offer of B), and when I try to take B+C to the draft, the AFL may or may not take away one or both of those picks.
So I could legitimately (per the left hand of the AFL) trade A for B+C, but be banned by the right hand of the AFL from doing the mirror trade later.
I realise the waters get murkier when a player is in the trade (how many fairy dust points do they weigh?) but the above scenario is ridiculous.
Technically you couldn’t do the exact mirror trade at any point anyway, because you’re not allowed to directly trade a pick back to the club you got it from. But I get that’s not the point.
Trades of picks are allowed up to a couple of days before the draft. If you find yourself with B+C at the end of trade week, and no open list spot to use pick C, you have several weeks to find a way to recombine the picks or perhaps push one of them into a future year. Or delist a fringe player to re-rookie them, thus opening a senior list spot.
It’s possible of course that nobody’s interested during that period, but then on draft night something the player another club wanted gets taken early and you could have got a good trade except that you no longer have that pick.
It’s kind of ridiculous, but I don’t think it’s necessarily more ridiculous than being able to match a bid for a top 20 pick with a handful of picks in the 50s that you would have had to pass with anyway. The difference to me is that in the former case, the club has backed themselves into a position they could have avoided in the first place and also probably got out of quite easily, while in the latter every club with an academy/FS pick in a given year is incentivised to play silly buggers.
My personal opinion is that the points values should drop away much faster, and the cutoff for zero points should probably be somewhere near the start of the third round, then the pool of points relevant picks overlaps with the pool of picks teams actually want. You want to come to the draft with a dozen late picks worth nothing? Go wild. I don’t care what shenanigans people can get up to with Excel and a pile of cocaine, no list manager in the league would trade a top 20 pick for any number of picks in the 60s.
3 Likes
4 young blokes need to be added to the list, one must be a developing ruck such as Bowman.
BIG