AFL looking at trading of future draft picks

[bornadog]

The AFL will seriously consider allowing clubs to trade future draft picks - adopting a model from American sports - with a number of clubs and influential figures in favour of the right to trade draft selections a year in advance.

Essendon football operations general manager Rob Kerr has voiced support for the trading of future picks following the club's difficulties in striking a deal for Paddy Ryder, while Collingwood also favours the right to trade future draft picks.


Gold Coast list manager Scott Clayton is an advocate for allowing futures trading in the draft, and Greater Western Sydney's departing list manager Stephen Silvagni - headed to Carlton soon - is also open to the concept, as the league weighs up a number of potential changes to the trading/drafting free agency system.

story continues here

Good or bad thing?

[azabob]

I honestly think it will delay trades and result in trades not being made. Clubs like Essendon are bad to deal with now, wait till future picks are on the table!

[Greystache]

Bad idea. Some clubs will cripple themselves for many years chasing short term success. Could you imagine if Crazy Vossy was in charge and had this option? Brisbane would still be years away from a pick in the top 50.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I don't think it's a bad idea, especially if controls are in place, ie limited to only one future year and either a 1st or 2nd round (not both) to begin with.
I don't see why teams in the NFL can make it work, but we somehow can't be trusted?

[LostDoggy]

Another coup for the AFLPA as it will increase traffic.

[LostDoggy]

What I find interesting is that it isn't a guaranteed pick, as you can't tell where the team is going to finish the next season. I can see the best use of this type of trade being when you are confident you're about to rise but other teams rate you lower, your picks will have more value this year than next. For example, if we did it this year the trading club would assume they've just netted our first round pick at say, pick five at worst, but if we make a run up the ladder and make the eight, now that pick is not worth nearly as much.

I think both apply. It's a good or a bad thing depending on who gets the short end the year after.

[Happy Days]

Good idea, if clubs cripple themselves by mortgaging their future then it's their own damn fault. Why put a safeguard on list management?

What I want to see is trading on draft night becoming a thing. Allowing clubs to trade up/down in the draft based on player availability, etc.

[Remi Moses]

I'm tending to agree with Happy Days
If clubs are silly enough to think such short term lunacy , then bad luck.

[Topdog]

should have had it years ago

[GVGjr]

I don't really have a strong opinion either way but I do question why there is a need to do it?
If it's just to add excitement then that is a flawed argument.
If it's to get more deals done then how does it explain this year where a number of deals were completed?
The system that supposedly needs some tweaking has already found a way of getting enough deals done and I think that momentum will continue. Players are getting to other clubs. You only have to look at the players we lost and they all got to the clubs they wanted.

If they are to implement it then I would suggest the following:

- There should be no compensation for losing players to free agency.
- There should be no compensation picks for under performing clubs.
- You can can only trade picks from the following year not 2 or 3 years in advance.

Perhaps if we are to embrace the trading of future draft picks then father son selections and the current bidding system would need to cease as this could be manipulated and make it harder to father son players to get to the clubs they would like. Let them go into the draft pool like everyone else. That way future picks will have the best value.

The proposal of being able to trade draft picks on draft night that is also being considered is just a piece of American bullshit that might be good for TV but in reality will just create some competition for the clubs ego to be seen as the most forward thinking and progressive.

It's a simple National game that might have some International appeal but does not have the quality within the playing pool to adopt the same options that massive International sports do.

We already have a great pathway to the AFL with well run competitions and deals are being done that allow players to get to other clubs to further their careers.

By all means trade future draft picks if that's what clubs want but it needs to be stringently controlled.

[GVGjr]

should have had it years ago

What are the benefits of it?

[soupman]

I'm with GVGjr on this. I think it has more potential to hurt clubs than benefit them.

Those clubs thinking this is their last shot at a Premiership would do some real damage long term. The next time a club is like us or St.Kilda, and goes from being a prelim finalist to needing to do a complete rebuild in just 1 year will be a disaster. Their coach who is trying to keep them in the premiership window is likely to trade away the future draft pick to try and prop up a club on the edge of a cliff, and potentially save their job as well. That means the next season when the club has acknowledged it needs to rebuild and has a new coach it lacks a first round pick to do it with, and to make matters worse when the pick was traded the previous coach aw it as a pick 15, but in reality its pick 5.

I just don't see whats so wrong with the present system. It's not perfect, but trades are pretty much always done and players get to where they want. It also hugely complicates the father son system, practically making it impossible unless you bid for them a year in advance.

I just don't understand how fans can be so quick to bag out the AFL for making kneejerk rule changes that were pretty much guaranteed to have unforeseen consequences beyond the problem they were trying to "fix", and then be so happy to change such a key part of list management despite it not really solving any of the few problems with our off season.

[chef]

I really don't see the need, the system works as good as it's going to get ATM.

[Go_Dogs]

I don't mind it to an extent. The benefit it has, is that it may allow clubs to better manage their list management considerations when making plays for marquee players.

Say for instance, Patrick Dangerfield nominates that he wants to head to Geelong at the end of this season, Geelong have finished 6th on the ladder, and hold pick 13 in the draft. They have no players they are prepared to give up, to satisfy the Crows demands.

Geelong have a few options, under the current system it is likely they would need to involve themselves in another trade to gain an earlier selection, or involve another club in a 3-way deal. Not always easy to do.

If the trading of future picks were available, they could say to the Crows we'll give you our first round selection this year, and our first round selection next year (and whatever pick upgrades, etc may be realistically required to get the deal over the line).

The benefit it has for Geelong is that it enables them to deal solely with the Crows, get the man they want, and also ensure they stay in the second round of the draft in 2015 and 2016, meaning they still have access to some good kids both years. The Crows get the benefit of securing 2 additional first round picks, meaning they have either, more to trade with to secure a ready made replacement, or are well positioned to attack the draft in 2015 and 2016 in search of some elite kids to add to their program.

Even looking at our trade this year with Boyd/Griffen, I know on balance we probably paid overs, but if GWS had been able to add in their 2015 second round pick, or something of that nature, to better balance the scales, I'm sure it's something that would have appeased our club and supporters, and not been detrimental GWS' list management strategy.

There are certainly complications with it, and some clubs who overrate their own, may increase their unrealistic demands. It may also lead to some clubs (I'm thinking Ross Lyon may be someone who likes the concept) of loading up for the now at the expense of the future - but clubs need to be accountable with their list management decisions. It could be the difference in a club being able to get the player they need, and go from being a top 4 contender, to a genuine premiership contender.

The framework needs to be clear and concise, and it is something that will necessitate further consideration of our draft and trading rules, so without knowing the macro effect on the entire picture, it's hard to know - it simply can't be looked at in isolation.

[Remi Moses]

If clubs are silly enough not to have one on the future and one on the present than that's poor list management .
I'm not here nor there to be honest, but clubs have to think carefully on their list management .