Father Son Rule Change

[tigerlove]

Can we drop Pickett now? Would basically have to pay full value for father/son from now on. And let's face it, when's the last time we've acquired a gun father/son?

The AFL is set to overhaul the draft points system to force clubs to pay a higher price for academy and father-son players.

However under the changes, teams would now need to pay the same price point at which another clubs bids for a player — as in match a first-round bid using a first-round pick — not with a combination of later selections.

 

[btoz_01]

Can we drop Pickett now? Would basically have to pay full value for father/son from now on. And let's face it, when's the last time we've acquired a gun father/son?

The AFL is set to overhaul the draft points system to force clubs to pay a higher price for academy and father-son players.

However under the changes, teams would now need to pay the same price point at which another clubs bids for a player — as in match a first-round bid using a first-round pick — not with a combination of later selections.

When is that coming in?

 

[The Lurker]

When is that coming in?

As soon as the Tigers have player(s) of value appear

 

[tigerlove]

When is that coming in?

Being discussed now. I imagine for next year. Surely not for this year where some teams probably already commenced hoarding of later picks.

 

[TigerFurious]

Can we drop Pickett now? Would basically have to pay full value for father/son from now on. And let's face it, when's the last time we've acquired a gun father/son?

The AFL is set to overhaul the draft points system to force clubs to pay a higher price for academy and father-son players.

However under the changes, teams would now need to pay the same price point at which another clubs bids for a player — as in match a first-round bid using a first-round pick — not with a combination of later selections.

What if one of Picketts boys is projected to go top 5 in the year we have a first pick at say 15? That’s a pretty sweet deal to get a top five talent for a pick in the teens.

Also, who exactly are we going to replace Pickett with? Our VFL side ain’t exactly bursting with untried young talent right now.

 

[mrposhman]

We'd need to see the description of this, just saying you need a 1st to bid on a 1st round pick is ridiculous. What if they are bid on with the last pick of the 1st round? There aren't any remaining 1st round picks, so you lose access to them??

I'd much prefer a system, where you can still match with whatever picks you have, maybe a bit of a move to reduce the value of picks greater than 50, but also adding in a change to the price you pay.

Something like, bid on with a 1st round pick, you can match with any 1st round pick then you either retain the discount, or perhaps just pay the same value with your later picks (ie. eradicate the discount). If you don't have a pick in the same round, then you pay some sort of value penalty, say 10-15% per round of where your next pick comes.

Lets say for example use the Jed Walter example from last year, they matched with 26, 30 and 32 and got back 57, for an overall price of 1,760 points.

In the scenario I have above with the 10% premium applied, then they would actually not have enough with the above as pick 3 is worth 2,234 points, so they would actually need to find an additional 2,457 points or close to an additional 700 points (pick 27) in order to match.

It makes even more sense when you then look at Ethan Read, which is a similar story a 10% premium would be applied rather than the discount.

Rogers would go further, as the 1st pick they could match with was in the 40's that was in the 3rd round, so their penalty would be increased to 20% etc.

I think it makes more sense, but maybe there is more to the story, but just going with a plain 1st round for a 1st round seems a bit dumb off the cuff unless its accompanied with more changes. I'd think just swinging the discount to a premium makes more sense personally, want to pay with a bunch of lower picks, go for it, but expect to pay more. For example, some of the trades GC did last yar generated gains of 300-500 points per trade, thats fine, but you need to expect to pay some of that back in terms of a premium. Maybe 10-15% is too high, maybe removing the discount and applying 5% per round from where the 1st pick you use comes from makes more sense, but this sort of system seems to work better in my mind, all that needs to be done is a flip of the discount to a premium pricing model.

 

[Mantikorr]

Surely they can't bring these changes in this year, whatever they may be. It compromises last years trades done for future picks, which of course means we'll get reamed. Which means you can bet your house on it they'll make the changes so we can't exploit the rules like everyone else has done previously

 

[tony_montana]

Surely they can't bring these changes in this year, whatever they may be. It compromises last years trades done for future picks, which of course means we'll get reamed. Which means you can bet your house on it they'll make the changes so we can't exploit the rules like everyone else has done previously

They havent ruled out bringing it in for this year. You just know that now that we're placed well with a raft of later picks, they will bring it in this year - nothing surer..

 

[tigersnake]

We'd need to see the description of this, just saying you need a 1st to bid on a 1st round pick is ridiculous. What if they are bid on with the last pick of the 1st round? There aren't any remaining 1st round picks, so you lose access to them??

I'd much prefer a system, where you can still match with whatever picks you have, maybe a bit of a move to reduce the value of picks greater than 50, but also adding in a change to the price you pay.

Something like, bid on with a 1st round pick, you can match with any 1st round pick then you either retain the discount, or perhaps just pay the same value with your later picks (ie. eradicate the discount). If you don't have a pick in the same round, then you pay some sort of value penalty, say 10-15% per round of where your next pick comes.

Lets say for example use the Jed Walter example from last year, they matched with 26, 30 and 32 and got back 57, for an overall price of 1,760 points.

In the scenario I have above with the 10% premium applied, then they would actually not have enough with the above as pick 3 is worth 2,234 points, so they would actually need to find an additional 2,457 points or close to an additional 700 points (pick 27) in order to match.

It makes even more sense when you then look at Ethan Read, which is a similar story a 10% premium would be applied rather than the discount.

Rogers would go further, as the 1st pick they could match with was in the 40's that was in the 3rd round, so their penalty would be increased to 20% etc.

I think it makes more sense, but maybe there is more to the story, but just going with a plain 1st round for a 1st round seems a bit dumb off the cuff unless its accompanied with more changes. I'd think just swinging the discount to a premium makes more sense personally, want to pay with a bunch of lower picks, go for it, but expect to pay more. For example, some of the trades GC did last yar generated gains of 300-500 points per trade, thats fine, but you need to expect to pay some of that back in terms of a premium. Maybe 10-15% is too high, maybe removing the discount and applying 5% per round from where the 1st pick you use comes from makes more sense, but this sort of system seems to work better in my mind, all that needs to be done is a flip of the discount to a premium pricing model.

Firstly, it is not ridiculous at all. Its just standard stuff that can be dealt with when drafting the regs. Bread and butter for lawyers who draft this stuff. And the drafting could incorporate in part your ideas, which I agree with in principle.

Just brainstorming, but following your Walters example, 10% discount and must use a first rounder, no discount if using a second, 10% premium if a third etc. Another way is a club has to use a draft pick within 10 picks of the pick the player is taken at. Everyone knew Walter would be top 3 18 months out, everyone knew Read would go 7-12 6 months out. If there is more uncertainty with players going later in the draft, they have to make a call and back themselves, or just pick them. That's the way it should be.

I could talk all day on the finer points, but the key policy issues that have to be dealt with are,

1) Having first right of refusal is the primary concern and the primary benefit; having guaranteed access to a player you want. This seems to get lost in any discussions on this.
2) Clubs have to be very good planners to maximise their access to players if there are more than one.
3) It should get difficult to obtain more than 1 star player, and virtually impossible to obtain 3 or more. (that is stars I'm talking about, late picks and rookies, no worries).

If the AFL policies were better, the Suns would have had to do a lot of work to get into position to get Walter and Read, they would have missed Rogers, and probably Graham. That is still a massive benefit for them, a bonanza.

Aside from making it fairer, it makes it more interesting. In most cases there won't be an issue. A club will have access to 1 star and they'll make sure they get them, and they may have another late pick or rookie. But more than 1 star and a whole lot of assessment, discussion and decisions come into it. And that is the way it should be.

 

[tigersnake]

We'd need to see the description of this, just saying you need a 1st to bid on a 1st round pick is ridiculous. What if they are bid on with the last pick of the 1st round? There aren't any remaining 1st round picks, so you lose access to them??

How would this scenario actually play out in practice? If a club has its act together it has 1 or 2 late first round picks, if a player they want drifts, they just pick them using those picks.

Using the Read Walter example, if these proposed rules were in. GC still trade down their first rounders to have 2 late firsts. Say 15 and 18. Walter first up at 3, match with 18 and some junk, then Read next, he goes before 15 they match, he lasts till 15 they just take him. They've secured the best fwd in the comp for peanuts, and the best ruck in the comp either at a discount or market value. Still big winners.

 

[mrposhman]

Firstly, it is not ridiculous at all. Its just standard stuff that can be dealt with when drafting the regs. Bread and butter for lawyers who draft this stuff. And the drafting could incorporate in part your ideas, which I agree with in principle.

Just brainstorming, but following your Walters example, 10% discount and must use a first rounder, no discount if using a second, 10% premium if a third etc. Another way is a club has to use a draft pick within 10 picks of the pick the player is taken at. Everyone knew Walter would be top 3 18 months out, everyone knew Read would go 7-12 6 months out. If there is more uncertainty with players going later in the draft, they have to make a call and back themselves, or just pick them. That's the way it should be.

I could talk all day on the finer points, but the key policy issues that have to be dealt with are,

1) Having first right of refusal is the primary concern and the primary benefit; having guaranteed access to a player you want. This seems to get lost in any discussions on this.
2) Clubs have to be very good planners to maximise their access to players if there are more than one.
3) It should get difficult to obtain more than 1 star player, and virtually impossible to obtain 3 or more. (that is stars I'm talking about, late picks and rookies, no worries).

If the AFL policies were better, the Suns would have had to do a lot of work to get into position to get Walter and Read, they would have missed Rogers, and probably Graham. That is still a massive benefit for them, a bonanza.

Aside from making it fairer, it makes it more interesting. In most cases there won't be an issue. A club will have access to 1 star and they'll make sure they get them, and they may have another late pick or rookie. But more than 1 star and a whole lot of assessment, discussion and decisions come into it. And that is the way it should be.

Tend to agree but my point on being ridiculous, is if the only scenario is they need a pick in the same round, then its ridiculous as its far too simplistic. My example of what if they were bid on with the last pick of the 1st round, you don't have any chance to have a pick in the same round.

BTW maybe I didn't explain my position best. Personally there should be no discount, as you say they get the benefit of being able to select them anywhere they fall regardless of their picks, providing a discount is just a slap in the face to every other club.

So my view was no discount / premium if you have a pick in the same round, then a ramping up of a premium depending on where your next pick is. The GC one is a good example, Walter would have had a premium, Read would have had a premium, Rogers would have had a ramped premium and it probably makes Graham unaffordable for them so they would lose access to him.

The fact that the Suns got all 4 players AND then have 1 of if not the best hand for 2024 is outrageous.

 

[tigersnake]

Tend to agree but my point on being ridiculous, is if the only scenario is they need a pick in the same round, then its ridiculous as its far too simplistic. My example of what if they were bid on with the last pick of the 1st round, you don't have any chance to have a pick in the same round.

BTW maybe I didn't explain my position best. Personally there should be no discount, as you say they get the benefit of being able to select them anywhere they fall regardless of their picks, providing a discount is just a slap in the face to every other club.

So my view was no discount / premium if you have a pick in the same round, then a ramping up of a premium depending on where your next pick is. The GC one is a good example, Walter would have had a premium, Read would have had a premium, Rogers would have had a ramped premium and it probably makes Graham unaffordable for them so they would lose access to him.

The fact that the Suns got all 4 players AND then have 1 of if not the best hand for 2024 is outrageous.

I agree. As I've said, first right of refusal is THE benefit. In a normal, proper market you pay a premium for that, you don't get a discount. Agree, totally outrageous.

Don't agree on the must use a pick in the same round issue, its eminently workable. It might make it hard, but thats the way it should be, see my prev post.

Some of my suggestions are based on second guessing the AFL, that they won't make any radical changes. The fact the AFL are going to make changes underlines how stuffed the current situation is!

If it was up to me, 1. Any matched bid must include a pick in the same round ( or alternatively, be within 10 picks). 2. No points discount.

 

[mrposhman]

If it was up to me, 1. Any matched bid must include a pick in the same round ( or alternatively, be within 10 picks). 2. No points discount.

OK so I'll play devils advocate. A player gets bid on at 20, that club has a pick at 31. Does that mean they lose access to him? Having arbitrary rules like this will only lead to a more complex system, ie. trying to simplify it will actually lead to a more complex environment.

IMO, the system that have build theoretically has the hall marks for the right system, it was just implemented incredibly badly, essentially giving the academy clubs / father son clubs with players for basically very little outlay.

My idea is a simple tweak from that system, but 1 which forces clubs to pay more for their players than they currently do.

 

[tigersnake]

OK so I'll play devils advocate. A player gets bid on at 20, that club has a pick at 31. Does that mean they lose access to him? Having arbitrary rules like this will only lead to a more complex system, ie. trying to simplify it will actually lead to a more complex environment.

IMO, the system that have build theoretically has the hall marks for the right system, it was just implemented incredibly badly, essentially giving the academy clubs / father son clubs with players for basically very little outlay.

My idea is a simple tweak from that system, but 1 which forces clubs to pay more for their players than they currently do.

Yes! Bloody oath they lose access. They have to get themselves organised, and pay up. I think my scenario is more realistic than yours, but at some point you have to draw a line, eg 100 games to qualify for a F/S, totally arbitrary, but based on a valid cultural vibe. There would be scenarios, rare but they would happen, where a player drifts or climbs at the last minute. Thats footy.

Under my system clubs effectively get pretty easy guaranteed and cheap access to 1 star player, it will and should get progressively more difficult after that.

edit: under your scenario they would still have access, pick 20 is a second round pick, so is 31. One way you could do it is a club has to match with a pick in the same round, OR a pick within 10 picks.

 

[tigerdell]

Firstly Posh there is no doubt the proposal has more detail to cover your scenarios.
Its just that the media hasnt printed it yet.
Because the AFL hasnt developed it yet

 

[tigerdell]

Also the big push for change is because clubs are using late picks as points to gain access to high selections. That rort has to stop.
IF its tweaked to be more expensive aka more points, then GCS would use more 3rd rounders to get the Walters Reids etc
so there would be no change

 

[mrposhman]

Yes! Bloody oath they lose access. They have to get themselves organised, and pay up. I think my scenario is more realistic than yours, but at some point you have to draw a line, eg 100 games to qualify for a F/S, totally arbitrary, but based on a valid cultural vibe. There would be scenarios, rare but they would happen, where a player drifts or climbs at the last minute. Thats footy.

Under my system clubs effectively get guaranteed access to 1 star player, it will and should get progressively more difficult after that.

I'd just prefer to keep the focus on those clubs still having access to the players. How shitty would it be for the Tiges to finally get a good father / son and lose out because he's bid on a bit earlier than we thought and we have 11 or 12 spots between that pick and our pick. Its a shitty way to deal with it IMO.

You can do the same thing with discounting (in a similar way to a tariff or royalty scheme) essentially you make it more expensive as you go through. Maybe as I say, bid outside the round you are in (or we could us your 10 picks for example) then you get a premium applied. Maybe there should be a premium if its your 2nd player.

Take the GC one.

Walter - no picks within 10 of Pick 3 - 10% premium applied
Read - no picks within 10 of Pick 9 - 10% premium applied plus 5% for your 2nd player
Rogers - no picks within 10 of Pick 40 - 10% premium applied plus 10% for your 3rd player

Perhaps that premium applied for the outside of 10 pick, could be tiered too. Ie. between 10-20 picks of the bid - 5% premium. Between 20-30 picks - 10% premium, above 30 picks 20% premium

It gets to the same position but it doesn't take away access due to any arbitrary number of picks which isn't a guarantee prior to the draft. For example, we get a father / son, tipped to land around 25 so we ensure that we have pick 31 to bid with. Essendon with the Dodo being a prick decide to play silly buggers and bid on him at 20, we lose access due to something outside of our control. I'd rather there was just a premium impact that made the pick value more costly than losing access to the player.

 

[mrposhman]

Also the big push for change is because clubs are using late picks as points to gain access to high selections. That rort has to stop.
IF its tweaked to be more expensive aka more points, then GCS would use more 3rd rounders to get the Walters Reids etc
so there would be no change

Thats not a problem in my eyes, as they have to get those 3rd rounders from somewhere. Ie. they need to trade players away, trade future picks etc. The biggest issue for me, was GC got the greatest haul of all time from an academy batch, that should have wiped them out for 2 drafts, but they also have 1 of the best draft hauls in 2024, because they took advantage of getting value out of their high picks (by gaining premiums for selling them) but could then use that value to buy discounted picks. Its the greatest double whammy of all time.

 

[tigersnake]

I'd just prefer to keep the focus on those clubs still having access to the players. How shitty would it be for the Tiges to finally get a good father / son and lose out because he's bid on a bit earlier than we thought and we have 11 or 12 spots between that pick and our pick. Its a shitty way to deal with it IMO.

You can do the same thing with discounting (in a similar way to a tariff or royalty scheme) essentially you make it more expensive as you go through. Maybe as I say, bid outside the round you are in (or we could us your 10 picks for example) then you get a premium applied. Maybe there should be a premium if its your 2nd player.

Take the GC one.

Walter - no picks within 10 of Pick 3 - 10% premium applied
Read - no picks within 10 of Pick 9 - 10% premium applied plus 5% for your 2nd player
Rogers - no picks within 10 of Pick 40 - 10% premium applied plus 10% for your 3rd player

Perhaps that premium applied for the outside of 10 pick, could be tiered too. Ie. between 10-20 picks of the bid - 5% premium. Between 20-30 picks - 10% premium, above 30 picks 20% premium

It gets to the same position but it doesn't take away access due to any arbitrary number of picks which isn't a guarantee prior to the draft. For example, we get a father / son, tipped to land around 25 so we ensure that we have pick 31 to bid with. Essendon with the Dodo being a prick decide to play silly buggers and bid on him at 20, we lose access due to something outside of our control. I'd rather there was just a premium impact that made the pick value more costly than losing access to the player.

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. But I edited my post, must match with pick in same round OR pick within 10 picks, that covers your scenarios.

Smart clubs will do what has to be done, and have some failsafes, but there will be limits, and the price will be fair. As a related issue, we already see clubs pay a premium for a player they have links with but not guaranteed access, eg D Rioli. That might happen a bit more and thats fine.

 

[tigerdell]

Must use a pick from that round is the sensible minimum requirement
Plus must have the points.

Every club starts with a pick in each round. So its fair.
If clubs trade a pick away from that round its bad luck.
If they've already used it then (here the devil needs to work) then their next pick is used. And maybe the future pick is sent backwards.

Eg a player is bid on pick 20 (r2)
IF the club has pick 31 (r2) then 31 + points is used
IF the club has pick 19 (r2) and have already selected, then r3 + points is used. Maybe s future r2 is pushed back so that a r2 is part of the price
IF the club has traded r2 pick then they miss out