Ayce Cordy

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Ayce Cordy

Not a big fan of basketball myself either, didn't seem to do Westy much harm though.

I obviously am a big basketball fan and am 70% sure I played against West - I can often see elements of basketball in him.

Interesting to see this article on Ayce:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22080116%255E19775,00.html

I am not whinging from a bulldogs perspective but I think this bidding for father sons is ridiculous. As many father sons as possible should be given the opportunity to go to the club their fathers played at - so personally I would make it their last pick in the draft. In another 10 years time or so then the interstate clubs will have their own father sons to pick from and it will all be fairer.

With that said heres hoping the Grants next kid is a boy!

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Ayce Cordy

Next 5 kids are boys...

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Ayce Cordy

My understanding is that all other clubs can nominate which round they want to select any of the father/son players. This is not pick specific.

So if Essendon want to select him in round one all we would have to do is match our round one selection to get him (providing he nominates for the father son anyway)

There will be a lot of trading for late round selections to pressure other teams. For argument sake, the last pick in round two for us is better than the first pick of round two for any other team. A late pick in round one would trump us unless we were prepared to part with a round one pick.

Hope this makes sense.

My understanding is we have to use our next pick after the pick nominated by another club.

If, let's say Essendon with pick 6, nominate first round. Our first round pick is 12 so we would have to use pick 12.

If only Geelong with pick 15 nominate first round we would be required to use our next pick, say 28.

The worst scenario in this example would be if, say Sydney has pick 11 and nominate first round, we would be required to still use pick 12.

If we decline, the club that nomiates him with the highest pick must take him with that pick.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Ayce Cordy

My understanding is we have to use our next pick after the pick nominated by another club.

If, let's say Essendon with pick 6, nominate first round. Our first round pick is 12 so we would have to use pick 12.

If only Geelong with pick 15 nominate first round we would be required to use our next pick, say 28.

The worst scenario in this example would be if, say Sydney has pick 11 and nominate first round, we would be required to still use pick 12.

If we decline, the club that nomiates him with the highest pick must take him with that pick.

I dont see that fixing much if you finish very low. All that it would mean is that instead of say Hawkins last year costing a third rounder it would cost a second rounder - which is still a steal while teams finishing mid-range could get a further penlty for finishing in the middle. Really if you cant finish on top, you may as well finish bottom 4.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Ayce Cordy

I dont see that fixing much if you finish very low. All that it would mean is that instead of say Hawkins last year costing a third rounder it would cost a second rounder - which is still a steal while teams finishing mid-range could get a further penlty for finishing in the middle. Really if you cant finish on top, you may as well finish bottom 4.

If any of the teams that finished below the Cats last year wanted Hawkins (all of them), then Geelong would have had to use it's 1st round draft pick.

[mjp]

Re: Ayce Cordy

If any of the teams that finished below the Cats last year wanted Hawkins (all of them), then Geelong would have had to use it's 1st round draft pick.

Yep - isn't that fair enough though?

I dont understand the hand-wringing about this rule. You can still have the father-son pick. But he just costs you what he is 'worth', rather than always a 3rd round selection. It doesn't stop clubs picking father-sons. It doesn't make it harder for them to pick a father-son. It just means they are unable to turn good luck into more than one 'first rounder' in any given year.

I also dont quite understand what happens if the club in question has traded its 'next pick' to another club. How does that work? eg.Geelong last year had pre-traded pick 8 to West Coast for West Coast's second round pick (pick 32) and a player. Would that mean that if a team in the first few picks had nominated Hawkins, Geelong take him with pick 32 as their next pick or does it mean that since they had traded pick 8, they lose the ability to select him?

If the answer is 'pick 32' and you have a highly rated father son pick, trade, trade, trade. If only you could trade future years picks - then chaos really would reign with regards to this ruling.

[Twodogs]

Re: Ayce Cordy

I also dont quite understand what happens if the club in question has traded its 'next pick' to another club. How does that work? eg.Geelong last year had pre-traded pick 8 to West Coast for West Coast's second round pick (pick 32) and a player. Would that mean that if a team in the first few picks had nominated Hawkins, Geelong take him with pick 32 as their next pick or does it mean that since they had traded pick 8, they lose the ability to select him?

There's a silly anomaly already and we've only skimmed the surface debating this. Have the AFL really thought through this or have they jumped at shadows and changed a rule(that they've changed three times in the last 15 years BTW) that really didnt need to be changed because the media were banging on about it?

I dont understand the hand-wringing about this rule. You can still have the father-son pick. But he just costs you what he is 'worth', rather than always a 3rd round selection. It doesn't stop clubs picking father-sons. It doesn't make it harder for them to pick a father-son. It just means they are unable to turn good luck into more than one 'first rounder' in any given year.

I dont understand what was really wrong with the old system. It was uncomplicated, traditional and supporters loved it. It seems to me that we've only changed it because of Hawkins, and players like Tom Hawkins go F/S once in a lifetime. Thius system is complicated, unruly and everyone will hate it within two years of actually understanding what is going on.


If we must have a new system then lets drop the games qualification back to 50.

[Raw Toast]

Re: Ayce Cordy

If we must have a new system then lets drop the games qualification back to 50.

I'd be happy with this, though I'd be even happier if we use the Tardis to pick up Ben Reid with it (either that or give his dad another 20 games or so).

Be interesting to do the stats on father-son picks versus general 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks. I reckon they'd stack up pretty well with at least 2nd rounders over the last 10 years or so.

[mjp]

Re: Ayce Cordy

I dont understand what was really wrong with the old system. It was uncomplicated, traditional and supporters loved it. It seems to me that we've only changed it because of Hawkins, and players like Tom Hawkins go F/S once in a lifetime. Thius system is complicated, unruly and everyone will hate it within two years of actually understanding what is going on.

Once in a lifetime?

I was reading somewhere that the past few Larke medallists (best in the u18 National Carnival) have all been father son candidates of sorts.

2004 Jesse W Smith (Vic Metro) - North
2005 Marc Murphy (Vic Metro) - Lions
2006 Tom Hawkins (Vic Metro) - Geelong
2007 Cale Morton (WA) - West Coast

Ignore the fact that the interstate clubs rules has impacted on Morton's eligibility - this isn't a once in a lifetime thing, it is happening every single year!

[Twodogs]

Re: Ayce Cordy

Facts are that's still only two players who actually went (are going to go) F/S though. Still doesnt make me think there was anything wrong with the rule as it originally stood.

[southerncross]

Re: Ayce Cordy

Facts are that's still only two players who actually went (are going to go) F/S though. Still doesnt make me think there was anything wrong with the rule as it originally stood.

I agree. As much as we haven't been able to get the same type of results that the Pies and Cats have, I still like the original rule.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Ayce Cordy

I'd be happy with this, though I'd be even happier if we use the Tardis to pick up Ben Reid with it (either that or give his dad another 20 games or so).

I'd rather use the Tardis.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Ayce Cordy

I also dont quite understand what happens if the club in question has traded its 'next pick' to another club. How does that work? eg.Geelong last year had pre-traded pick 8 to West Coast for West Coast's second round pick (pick 32) and a player. Would that mean that if a team in the first few picks had nominated Hawkins, Geelong take him with pick 32 as their next pick or does it mean that since they had traded pick 8, they lose the ability to select him?

If the answer is 'pick 32' and you have a highly rated father son pick, trade, trade, trade. If only you could trade future years picks - then chaos really would reign with regards to this ruling.

I think the proposal was for the father-son stuff to be worked out before the trade period

[mjp]

Re: Ayce Cordy

Facts are that's still only two players who actually went (are going to go) F/S though. Still doesnt make me think there was anything wrong with the rule as it originally stood.

And that is another issue with the old rule. You are either a F/S pick or you are not. How Marc Murphy was able to just say 'No Thanks Brisbane' is still something that baffles me. Make no mistake, the Lions would have taken him F/S but he elected to go into the draft instead...

[Twodogs]

Re: Ayce Cordy

And that is another issue with the old rule. You are either a F/S pick or you are not. How Marc Murphy was able to just say 'No Thanks Brisbane' is still something that baffles me. Make no mistake, the Lions would have taken him F/S but he elected to go into the draft instead...

Apart from anything else his dad never played for Brisbane.






That flexibility is a strength of the rule. If you want the slightly more secure path of having a club nominate you before the draft, then great, go for it. If you want to enter the draft and go at the highest number you can, so be it. Let's give the kids the option.