Father Son Rule Change

[mrposhman]

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.

Yeah I don't think we are far away, I just don't want anyone to lose access to those players so would rather it was done via premium cost being applied.

The biggest rort of the system isn't being able to use later picks to get players, it was being able to sell your higher picks for premiums, and then use those picks to pick players up at a discount, Remove the discount and apply premiums where necessary then it becomes a numbers game, wheer the "profit" on these trades isn't exponentially beneficial to the club bidding on the players.

 

[tigerdell]

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.

Agreed but dont think this is what will happen. Clubs only get allocated 1 pick per round.
There's no way to guarantee where the bid will be.
Or that clubs near a bid will trade.
So there will be provision for using your next pick.

 

[tigerdell]

Yeah I don't think we are far away, I just don't want anyone to lose access to those players so would rather it was done via premium cost being applied.

The biggest rort of the system isn't being able to use later picks to get players, it was being able to sell your higher picks for premiums, and then use those picks to pick players up at a discount, Remove the discount and apply premiums where necessary then it becomes a numbers game, wheer the "profit" on these trades isn't exponentially beneficial to the club bidding on the players.

Disagree. The big rort is using late picks for top end players.
Yes the points gaming has become a rort, but that stops if the bids must be matched with a same round pick.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah I don't think we are far away, I just don't want anyone to lose access to those players so would rather it was done via premium cost being applied.

The biggest rort of the system isn't being able to use later picks to get players, it was being able to sell your higher picks for premiums, and then use those picks to pick players up at a discount, Remove the discount and apply premiums where necessary then it becomes a numbers game, wheer the "profit" on these trades isn't exponentially beneficial to the club bidding on the players.

I think the unfettered later picks is part of the rort, in combo with those other aspects.

Under my system no club would lose access to their primary target, lets be clear on that. They might struggle to get their secondary target, and really struggle to get a third. If we've got Dusty, Cotch and Jacks sons all in one draft and they're all first round, we have to make some hard calls. But in reality, that won't happen. They'll be in different years, they'll be at different rounds of the drafts etc.

 

[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

Maybe the future round pick can be used. And if there is a points discrepancy then it comes off the later first picks.

So if the club has already selected in round 2, then it's a future r2. And any points needed is paid with the future r3 r4 etc

 

[mrposhman]

Agreed but dont think this is what will happen. Clubs only get allocated 1 pick per round.
There's no way to guarantee where the bid will be.
Or that clubs near a bid will trade.
So there will be provision for using your next pick.

The AFL clearly want a trade environment that is highly active, they won't put in provisions that present a disincentive to trade like you suggest. I'd be surprised if the scenario isn't similar to mine which seems like the most logical scenario to keep the trading environment active whilst ensuring that the "profit margin" on pick trading is minimised from its current outrageous position.

However I'll apply that with a caveat, that the AFL will probably bring in a system that is weak as usual. They are a future business case for business studies students of how to continually to screw things up, put a band aid on it, and actually make it worse somehow.

 

[mrposhman]

Disagree. The big rort is using late picks for top end players.
Yes the points gaming has become a rort, but that stops if the bids must be matched with a same round pick.

GC rorted the system not by using later picks (they actually had a very strong hand coming into the 2023 draft, ie. they had already planned ahead for these 4 boys), they just took advantage of being able to buy later picks at a discount through pick trading with other clubs, but then also gaining a discount on the players that they got, further emphasising the "margin" they made on the pick trading / bidding process.

We don't want to take away the incentive of trading, afterall it gives other clubs more opportunity to get more picks at the top end of the draft if those bidding clkubs are vacating them, so it gives opportunities to the other 17 clubs, and that trading will still present the bidding club with the ability to essentially buy the later picks for a discount, but what you need to remove is the double discount and apply a penalty.

Essentially if you have 2 first rounders, you either need to trade away a whole bunch of middling players for 3rd rounders etc, or you need to use the value in your picks (which will all be 1st rounders). I'll have a stab at what GC's draft would look like with my system, and what they would be left with in 2024 in my system (I'll use premiums are charged if you don't have picks within the number of picks rather than rounds as rounds can be arbitrary aswell, 1st round might be 18 picks 1 year and 27 picks the next).

 

[spook]

However I'll apply that with a caveat, that the AFL will probably bring in a system that is weak as usual. They are a future business case for business studies students of how to continually to screw things up, put a band aid on it, and actually make it worse somehow.

To most people, 'The Was An Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly' is a cautionary parable for children. To the AFL, it's a business instruction manual.

 

[bigwow]

Agreed but dont think this is what will happen. Clubs only get allocated 1 pick per round.

Unless they're North Melbourne

 

[Brodders17]

Personally I dont like the idea that clubs have to use a pick from the same rounds- too many variables.
even forcing clubs to pick within a number of draft picks is uneven- the difference between using pick 10 for pick 1 as opposed to pick 45 for pick 35 is huge.

Perhaps fixing the points system so 3 picks in the 30s dont equal a top 5 pick would be a start, and maybe a limit on the number of picks that can be used to match.
if the points system was a closer match to reality, and teams could only use 2 picks (or even 3) it would force clubs to pay a more equitable price.

 

[tigersnake]

Personally I dont like the idea that clubs have to use a pick from the same rounds- too many variables.
even forcing clubs to pick within a number of draft picks is uneven- the difference between using pick 10 for pick 1 as opposed to pick 45 for pick 35 is huge.

Perhaps fixing the points system so 3 picks in the 30s dont equal a top 5 pick would be a start, and maybe a limit on the number of picks that can be used to match.
if the points system was a closer match to reality, and teams could only use 2 picks (or even 3) it would force clubs to pay a more equitable price.

Yes the difference between 10 picks is huge, but its nowhere near as huge as the current situation. Eg having to match pick 4 with pick 15 and some junk picks, is far closer to real value than matching with just junk picks. Don't agree on the too many variables, I think thats looking for problems that aren't really there. There are variables, but wouldn't be hard to make rules that account for them, I believe my suggestions do that. As for fixing the points system, I agree in principle, much harder to do in practice.

I've had a look. I'd genuinely be interested in any approach or suggestion you have.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Personally I dont like the idea that clubs have to use a pick from the same rounds- too many variables.
even forcing clubs to pick within a number of draft picks is uneven- the difference between using pick 10 for pick 1 as opposed to pick 45 for pick 35 is huge.

Perhaps fixing the points system so 3 picks in the 30s dont equal a top 5 pick would be a start, and maybe a limit on the number of picks that can be used to match.
if the points system was a closer match to reality, and teams could only use 2 picks (or even 3) it would force clubs to pay a more equitable price.

Not sure but perhaps only having as many picks available as you have list vacancies could also help matters. If a club's got four vacancies and only four picks but then uses it's first three picks to make up points value for a premium kid then they're gunna be a couple of players short on their list because they don't have enough picks left. Clubs cobbling a dozen *smile* picks together for cheap points value while they've only got three vacancies on the list is a bloody rort.

 

[mrposhman]

OK so I took a look at the GC rort of last year.

They entered the draft with a bunch of picks from other clubs, so they started the trade period with 5,453 points.

They did a number of trades, I won't go into the 1's that involved players as they all look like reasonably fair trades on both sides.

The pick trades a re a different scenario.

They traded with the Dogs and gained 762 points. They traded with Melbourne and gained 1057 points. They traded with North (actually lost a few points but moved a pick to 2024), they traded with brisbane and gained 427 points, and they traded with Freo and gained 124 points. The last 2 were trades at the draft.

All in all they gained from pick trading 2,297 points and moved 1,878 of those points into 2024 (Dogs 1st and Norths compo pick).
So their net points for 2023 were 5,872.

Their 4 bids, netted them a combined discount on those picks of 1,365 points, so collectively the gains from the double whammy of selling your high picks for a massive profit, and then profiting from the discounting was worth 3,662 points!! 20% more than the number 1 draft pick value!! Crazy good value they generated, basically a free Harley Reid and a bit more.

So I rolled my profile in there. I used the below premium measures.

1 - if a pick was within 10 picks of the bid - no discount or premium - pay market value
2 - If the pick was between 10 and 30 picks of the bid - 10% premium
3 - If the pick was above 30 picks from the bid - 20% premium
4 - 1st player - no premium. Additional 5% premium for each additional player, ie 5% for the 2nd, 10% for the 3rd etc

So Walter included a premium of 10%, Read included a premium of 15% (potentially could have been 25% - without doing the full draft again its a bit tricky to find out where their picks then fell), Rogers a premium of 30% and Graham a premium of 35%.

Essentially an increased cost on what they paid of 2,412 points. They would still have gained due to the pick trading down, and clubs seeing value in bidding for higher picks (and this is a good opportunity for the other 17 clubs), but its not the rort that it seemed to be.

For example, due to where their picks fell, they started with 5,453 points and needed to generate more than 7,865 points to get their 4 boys. They did that through pick trading, but they wouldn't have been able to trade those picks into 2024, they would have actually have needed to trade more into 2023 to pay for them.

Personally I think this system works, maybe the %'s etc might not be right, or we might prefer to play with pick values rather than premiums, but it seems the simplest way to fix the rort where you can generate that amount of value in trading down your picks, but also gaining the discount. Thats the biggest rort. Trading down and providing others access to high draft picks isn't a big issue for me, its the differential in trading value compounded by discounting that is the biggest issue for me.

 

[seven]

So, I’m guessing Geelong have no sons coming through the jnr ranks?

 

[spook]

Do actuaries come under the soft cap?

 

[eZyT]

To most people, 'The Was An Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly' is a cautionary parable for children. To the AFL, it's a business instruction manual.

hahaha, im nominating that for gold.

I just dont know how to do it

 

[Jason King]

I have always said this is the only fair way to get FS done. The only change I would make is to allow using picks up to 5 years in advance.

 

[Sintiger]

I was watching a video on the afl site when Dillon was interviewed.
I am not saying that it means anything at all but I found out something I didn’t know which is that he is actually a Tiger supporter.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

I gather our draft hand may be even more valuable then for trades/points matching?

 

[TigerMasochist]

I was watching a video on the afl site when Dillon was interviewed.
I am not saying that it means anything at all but I found out something I didn’t know which is that he is actually a Tiger supporter.

Been mentioned on various threads plenty of times. Beige behind glass chardy sipper. Meh.