The Nature Boy is problematic nowadays.
i think you need some vitamin D DJR
fixed
welcome to essendon back pocket lockdown defender in the andrew mcgath mold, KAKO
2 Likes
I think youâd need a little more nuance around it (say, you must use a pick in the next X selections to match).
Limit it to rounds and you could end up with weird situations where a team bids with the last pick of a round, leaving no ability to match.
3 Likes
Caddy2Kakko
Its not like we would have been a lock to get JUH.(although we had capital)
He was easily pick 1. Even our bounty of picks may not have got us up to snag him.
I think Sydney would have jumped on him as the next big thing to replace Buddy.
No. He will remain until needed as steak knives for the Harley Reid deal with West Coke.
This club has scarred us.
That might make it too hard to match though then. So you get to the point as to why bother.
Eg say we have pick 10 and we want Kako but the bid comes at 4.
Teams with 5,6,7,8 and 9 maybe unwilling to part with their selection.
And anymore leeway and you may as well simply leave it and just say same round. Means clubs can plan pre draft
To be fair, I would be filthy if I was a Dees supporter. Their club was shafted by the rules midway through a season and they had invested heavily in Andrew over a number of years.
I think clubs should be allowed to match anywhere in the draft but simply reducing the discount on points from 25%-10% would really make the entire process a lot fairer.
6 Likes
As I said though, If you leave it at âmust be the same roundâ you run into bids that would be impossible to match, because they were made with the last pick or two of a specific round.
Say you had a player expected to go early 2nd round, the premiers bid with pick 18.
The affiliated team only had pick 4 and 22. Obviously pick 4 was too high, under your system theyâre prevented from matching with 22.
It just causes issues. Limiting it to picks in the next X selections at least gives them a chance. The value of X would obviously have a pretty big impact, but I donât see another way if that sort of limit is your goal.
Changing it to must include a selection in the âfollowingâ round would obviously also be fine. Itâs the âsame roundâ stipulation I see issue with
Maybe they just remove the 20% discount? Could it be that simple? You match, you pay full points.
5 Likes
In that instance what id suggest is you could just match with a future first.
If your North Melbourne for example you would obviously trade future firsts with a better side first in live trading.
So youâd propose being able to use a future first and just completely ignore point values? I think that just ends up making it more confusing tbh.
Thereâs probably no perfect option, but I still maintain either âMust match within Xâ or âfollowing roundâ will be the most straight forward.
Then adjust (or remove) discounts, adjust point allocations, further limit selections that can be used as points, etc to make it a bit fairer.
Fast declining Stringer? This is his best year for us apart from 2021
Surely we keep and use our first if itâs projected he will go past our first pick
Worst case we can wrangle a lesser deal with it for later picks in the moment if he gets a very early bid
2 Likes
Itâs pretty clear that stringer has lost a lot of his power and strength as you hardly see him burst away from opponents anymore. Used to happen on the reg.
Nobody:
Dwayne Russell: Snap, Kako, and Pop!
11 Likes
Ngl that kinda slaps
2 Likes