AFL Bidding System

[GVGjr]

An interesting approach to father son and AFL academy players. The are some pros and cons with this.

Bidding System

CLUBS will be forced to pay what the AFL says is a fairer price for father-son and academy players under proposed radical changes.

Sydney is the first club set to be stung. The Swans have access to Josh Dunkley (son of former star Andrew) and academy gun Callum Mills (rated a possible No. 1 pick) and could need to cash in a multitude of picks — possibly over two seasons — to secure the pair.

Bidding would shift from the start of trade period to live on draft night under the scheme tabled to clubs late on Tuesday.

The new system could be ticked off at the AFL Commission meeting in March, before Round 1.

The Moneyball-style concept allocates draft picks a declining points value, with No. 1 worth 3000 points.

Some clubs are unconvinced with Brisbane Lions chief executive Greg Swann saying the changes are a knee-jerk reaction.

“We spend a lot of money on (academies) and if you can’t get some sort of benefit out of it then perhaps we should hand them back to the AFL to run,” he told the Herald Sun.

“The Swans are paying $1 million a year for their academy. We’re not that high, were in the hundreds of thousands … recruiters have to be prepared to let players go if they don’t meet the value.

“It’s almost the first stage of trading future picks.”

The AFL created the points system using player salaries from the past 15 years.

Discounts will be applied to ensure the father-son tradition remains and to provide incentive for the four northern clubs to run their talent academies.

The AFL is considering applying a 25 per cent discount to academy players and either a 25 or 15 per cent on father-sons.

It has given clubs until next month to give feedback on the discounts.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said on the eve of last year’s draft the system was “so mathematically based it blows your head off”.

Some recruiters yesterday said they would lobby the AFL to keep the father-son and academy discounts in line.

“We invest a lot of time and effort (in father-son programs), so it should be the same. No doubt about that, it must be consistent,” one chief scout said.

But they agreed the current system needed “tinkering” and was too generous to clubs with multiple players available in one draft.

An example is 2010 when the Western Bulldogs picked up Mitch Wallis and Tom Liberatore for picks No. 22 and No. 41.

Recruiters say Gippsland Power’s Dunkley — if he chooses the Swans — could command a pick in the 10-25 range.

That could see the Swans charged about 3000 points for him and Mills.

They would have to build a “points bank” by trading in picks to cash in on draft night, or potentially roll their leftover debt into 2016. The debt would have to be paid, by shifting one or more picks to the back of the draft queue, before the trade period.

When Geelong handed Adelaide picks 14 and 35 for No. 10 and 47 last year the draft value index showed the Cats were the slimmest of winners, 1711 points to 1682.

Under the new system, after Adelaide bid pick 29 for Billy Stretch last year the Demons would have needed to buy that pick to use on Stretch and then pay it off by shifting No. 42 to 51 and having No. 40 tossed to the end of the draft.

But the current system simply allowed them to select Stretch with pick 42.

There is an expected spike in academy players drafted in the next few years and the overhaul could see the format of draft night drastically altered.

With a handful recruiting bosses and club powerbrokers overseas, some clubs say it is too early to form a stance.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire launched a stinging attack on the academies last year but the AFL believes they are crucial to developing markets.

PAYING THE PRICE

How the Isaac Heeney case would have played out under the AFL’s proposed new father-son/academy bidding system

— Melbourne bids pick No. 2 (worth 2517 points) for Swans academy member Heeney.

— Sydney matches the bid and lands player, but “owes” 1888 points (2517 points, discounted by 25 per cent) to the draft.

— Points are matched to Sydney’s original first pick, No. 18 (985 points), and that pick is moved to the back of the draft. The Swans still owe 903 points.

— Remaining points are matched to Sydney’s next pick, No. 37 (483 points) and that pick is moved to the back of the draft. The Swans still owe 420 points.

— Remaining points are matched to Sydney’s next pick, No. 38 (465 points). The 45 leftover points entitles Sydney to “buy” pick No. 70 rather than go to the back of the line.

— Sydney would have effectively sold picks 18, 37 and 38 for 2 (Heeney), 70, 88 and 89. The Demons then would have taken Christian Petracca and Angus Brayshaw at No. 3 and 4.

— Last year they were able to select Heeney at No. 18 and retain picks No. 37 and 38. They selected two more academy players, excluded from this scenario.

KEY POINTS

— AFL proposes points discounts of 25 per cent for academy players and either 15 or 25 per cent for father-son picks.

— Clubs can go into points debt if all picks are cashed in, but debt must be paid before next season’s trade period.

— Father-son and academy bidding will be live on draft night with a rolling updated order

— Points system calculated on average player salaries from 2000-2014

— The system developed with consultation from the Player Movement Advisory Group and incorporates research from some American sports including the NFL

AFL DRAFT VALUE INDEX

Pick 1: 3000 points (Start of Round 1)

Pick 19: 948 points (Start of Round 2)

Pick 37: 483 points (Start of Round 3)

Pick 55: 207 points (Start of Round 4)

Pick 73: 9 points (Start of Round 5)

[chef]

Sounds ridiculously complex and is over complicating something that should be quite simple.

[GVGjr]

Sounds ridiculously complex and is over complicating something that should be quite simple.

I guess the problem is more around that one of the best players in the draft last year went to one of the top teams who got an excellent deal. In the current system that is likely to be repeated again this year as another highly rated academy player is likely headed to the Swans. At least the option being debated gives teams like Melbourne and us a better chance of getting the better players if we finish in the bottom few spots and it ensures teams pay a fairer value.

We all love the romance of father son selections but equally we feel a bit ripped off if an interstate team snares a top rated player for a late first round pick.

I wonder if they will eventually apply the same principles to FA and restricted FA transfers?

[Hotdog60]

It's a bit of a hard one. Could every club have their own academy and there for have full rights to that player as the club has put in the time and effort to bring these players on. Maybe the bidding gets down to the junior level as to which academy gets which player.

Ditch the father son all together. Maybe more AFL money will go down to the promotion of junior football and career paths.

Like most things in the AFL maybe they should just leave things alone. What was wrong with the old rule for father son.

[Mofra]

I think it's reasonably fair - academy players are still picked up at a significant discount so the incentive to develop talent in the northern states remains

[boydogs]

The AFL should be paying for the academies with money, not draft concessions

[bulldogtragic]

Ayce Cordy was ranked much high than Libba Jnr. May actually potentially accentuate such problems...

[Doc26]

I don't like the idea of father and sons included in this bidding system and would prefer to keep the promise,and promote the prospect, of sons getting to the Club of their father with no limitations other than keeping to the Club's list limit. I also like the nostalgia and randomness attached to it.

The Academy I see as a quite different beast where financial resources can buy elite kids.

[soupman]

Very complicated system.

I'm curious what the thinking with having it on draft day is. I think it presents two problems.

The first being the classic Bigfooty rort, "Why don't we trade all our good picks for good players so that when the other clubs bid first rounders for our star recruit we juts have to use our 5th rounder". While it doesn't work perfectly, in that there will still be a debt of the remaining points, whats to stop them doing this every year? How many points can a club be owing from previous drafts before the AFL steps in and stops it?

Eg. Sydney trade picks 18, 37 and 38 elsewhere for good players. Melboure bid pick 2 for Heeney. Sydney owe 2517 points. They sell their next pick (56?) which goes to the back of the line and gets them 300 points credit. They go into the next year with a 2217 point debt. That year they trade picks 18, 36 and 54 for good players. Melbourne bid pick 2 on Dunkley. Sydney owe 2517 points+2217=4734 points. They cash in pick 72 for 250 points. They now owe 4484 points at the next year. Repeat forever.

The second is how do clubs plan? If you do the bidding prior to trade week as per the past system Sydney get told straight up that they owe 2517 points. They know pick 18 is worth 985 points, 37 is worth 483 etc. Now they can trade with the knowledge of how much they owe, and can manipulate deals so that it comes out to a favourable outcome for themselves. By leaving bidding to draft night, it means a club might trade based on the assumption they will owe 2000 points for the player, and then get caught short when they owe 2500. Conversely they might only owe 1500 points for that player, and realise they had an extra 500 points to trade in trade week.

[soupman]

I don't like the idea of father and sons included in this bidding system and would prefer to keep the promise,and promote the prospect, of sons getting to the Club of their father with no limitations other than keeping to the Club's list limit. I also like the nostalgia and randomness attached to it.

The Academy I see as a quite different beast where financial resources can buy elite kids.

Not to mention its limited to a handful of select clubs, two of which are heavily subsidised by the AFL.

I like the concept of academies, and i agree that to help the game grow in the Northern states you need local players playing for their local clubs, but if you have them for those four clubs then you give them to all the other clubs. Alternatively you only give them to GWS and GC, as compensation for not having any father sons for a while.

[Doc26]

Hypothetically how would the system have held up if as examples both Wallis and Libba had been nominated by other Clubs at pick 1 and 2 and for example we finished ninth that season and ninth in the following.

Holding to the AFL's proposed point system, and with an assumption, until more details are provided, that the pick two is reduced from our second round pick (703 points) and not from our first round pick/points again (1469), my calculation would indicate that our next pick in that draft would not be until pick 74,where it appears no points are applied, but more dramatic that with the accumulated carry over points and assuming a ninth place finish again, we would not see our next pick in the following season start until pick 32.

Pick 1 = 2550 points with 15% disc.
Less 1469 points for ninth place (i.e pick 9)
Carry over points = 1081

Pick 2 = 2139.45 points with 15% disc.
Less 703 points for our second round pick (this is an assumption that our second F/S is deducted from round 2 and not round 1 again)
Carry over points = 1436.45

Accumulated carry over for next season = 2058.45 (also factoring in round 3 and 4 deductions)

This is a hypothetical but it will be interesting to see how a scenario of 2 x high pick F/S are applied and even how it might play out where in the subsequent season another first round F/S might come into play. A separate treatment of points may need to be factored into their modelling for the second and any subsequent F/S picks.

I would hate to see a heartless methodology send our next Libba to the GWS simply because the points applied didn't stack up in our favour. Just another reason why the AFL cronies so often appear out of touch with the heart of this game.

[FrediKanoute]

I don't like the idea of father and sons included in this bidding system and would prefer to keep the promise,and promote the prospect, of sons getting to the Club of their father with no limitations other than keeping to the Club's list limit. I also like the nostalgia and randomness attached to it.

The Academy I see as a quite different beast where financial resources can buy elite kids.

Agree. There has to be some chinks in the draft and father sons is one of them. I love the fact that I am now seeing 2nd generation players running around for the Bulldogs. Its what keeps the game real.

The academies point is a good one - if the production line is all but guaranteed, wouldn't you as a cashed up Northern club look to lure "talent" North to get a pre-draft advantage?

[LostDoggy]

Sydney and Brisbane should really go f@#k themselves. That's all I have to say about this.

[GVGjr]

I think it's reasonably fair - academy players are still picked up at a significant discount so the incentive to develop talent in the northern states remains

I wonder if the discount couldn't be 30% for academy players and 20% for father son picks. That might just get a better consensus amongst the teams.

[GVGjr]

Hypothetically how would the system have held up if as examples both Wallis and Libba had been nominated by other Clubs at pick 1 and 2 and for example we finished ninth that season and ninth in the following.

It's a good point you raise and my guess is that like the current system you can't get two FS picks in the first round.
So the value might be 1st pick of the first round and first pick of the 2nd if the players concerned were that good.