Printable View
Didn't North only realise Sanders was eligible for NGA late this year, and tried to retrospectively add him despite having nothing to do with his development?
If they had to be signed up by the time they were 15 or 16, would that help?
The other thought I had was around points...
If a player is bid in the top 10, then you need 1x top 10 or 2x top 20 to match it.
Bid in top 20, 1x top 20 or 2x top 30.
Etc
One of the biggest rorts is the ability to match a bid at #2 with 6 picks in the 30s.
Yes I like that idea JD.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzadogs
You need to at least use a pick in the vicinity. Like within 10 picks. So Jamarra we had to use 1-11 otherwise we miss out. I think that's better than making all bids after 40.
AFL really cock these things up every time.
Marra eg
If he's pick 1 we have to trade up to at least 11, then use more picks to match the points.
On index points :
1 = 3000
11 = 1329
We've got a ton of work to do to get him with that 1671 point deficit. It's equivalent to about pick 7.
This system we pay at least pick 11, and a bunch of picks worth 1621 for Marra v what we did pay (with 20 percent discount that should be removed too) picks 29, 33, 41, 42, 52, 54
I think that's more palatable/reasonable.
Lual that would've worked nicely, he gets picked at 39, we use 39-49 plus another bunch of picks that makes up the points difference.
My only problem may be if clubs bid way earlier than they're worth, however that's fine if they want to take that risk.
Edit: If we had of had say pick 5 in the Marra year originally. We didn't have to use it on him, we would use it however to lever our way to 11 and reduce the deficit.
I reckon this would make it really interesting.
They were trying to get the rules changed around their compensation pick (the one they hadn't been awarded at that time) so they could have access to Sanders via the NGA. I am told they initially expected the McKay comp to be end-of-first round. As it turned out, they didn't need the likes of Sanders...Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzadogs
With this NGA and Father/Son rules, they could easily come up with a better system if they wanted to do so.
The first step would be to tighten the qualification.
Then I would suggest that the 20% discount is OK for anyone who qualifies, but where a team has multiple the discount reduces. Say 10% for the second and no discount beyond that. I would also require any points to include at least some from the next round.
So a first round match must include at least a second round pick, while a second round match must include a third round match.
This would prevent a club getting access to multiple first rounders in the same draft unless they traded aggressively.
Might also mean more established players get traded and there probably needs to be scope for established players being traded on draft night.
So assuming you had 2 first round prospects you'd likely need 3 2nd round picks to meet the criteria. Unless there were some flexibility to 'save' a pick from point use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe
Eg you have 19,20, 40. You use 19 and 40 on a bid at 10 (lets remove the points discount for a moment here) but save 20 for the next player who is bid on at 15.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by hujsh
You use your points for 10 and then might need to trade in something extra if your next player goes at 15. Alternative is to let one go unmatched.
Right you're saying continue with the current system, introduce an additional requirement and make no concessions to enable bids on multiple kids. Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe
That's about it, but the additional kids also have less available discount.Quote:
Originally Posted by hujsh
The other ridiculous thing is having to delist players to create a pick because you need the points, then re drafting the players as rookies.