-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Blair "Which?" Project
- Thread starter Tony Braxton-Hicks
- Start date
I dont reckon the Suns benefitted from corruption in this instance. I reckon it is more an example of ineptness at the AFL. It takes something like the Suns hand this year for them to realise what they have created. Just like they changed the NGA rules after JUH.
Surely someone at the AFL gets paid enough to know these examples could happen and they could have rules that prevent them rather than changing them after.
Ainsworth has been very good the past couple of seasons, he's a 200 gamer in all likelihood, averages a goal and 17 disposals a match, not the worst pick by any stretch. (He was also pick 4).
But just to illustrate what I'm talking about -
2014 - Peter Wright (pick 8)
2015 - Harry McKay (pick 10), Charlie Curnow (pick 12)
2016 - Todd Marshall (pick 16)
2017 - Aaron Naughton (pick 9) Darcy Fogarty (pick 12)
2018 - Ben King (pick 6)
2019 - Mitch Georgiades (pick 18)
2021 - Jacob Van Rooyen (pick 19)
2022 - Matt Jefferson (pick 14)
If we're talking about trading two first rounders for Cadman then there would want to be a bit more concrete evidence that he will match the output of these guys + factoring in the opportunity cost of overlooking the second player involved in the deal. If we double down on Cadman there's some chance this deal goes the way of the Hopper trade. These types of trades aren't always winners - Boyd, Schache, Patton, Hogan....................this is the reason there needs to be some more evidence from Cadman's corner.
That's not quite right. He struggled through the 2022 season as well.
For mine the big question is how is his knee that he's had quite a few issues with?
Seemed to have some complications with it this year too.
Hasn't got to the levels from 2021 for two years now.
Still 6 years on the contract..
Agree with what you are saying just thinking we write these players off too quickly.
Hopper was servicable in 2023. Even with his injury problems he still averaged 21 disposals 4 tackles per game and kicked 7 goals from his 16 games. Also averaged 4.18 inside 50s, which is close to his career average
He is under pressure, from supporters, due to the draft picks he cost the club. Not his fault.
Still looking for him to play the majority of games in 2024 and return 25+ average disposals over the season
I sort of get what you’re saying, but I think it’s a combination the two - ineptitude in attempting to corrupt the principles of a fair competition.
I hate them.Thats every year for me
They were rubbish at the start of 2022, they looked decade's away from winning a flag.
When they beat freo at optus and when they came from behind, started the run of close wins.
If they lost they would've dropped 3 in a row and the mob would've become restless and smiley wouldn't be smiling.
its just another typical AFL system. Grey areas everywhere, which enables them the ability to manipulate it.
Corruption 101
Corruption 101
Post Lynch..
Ryan, Fawcett, Koschitzke, Bauer
Despite all being young & in development, none certain to be a long term replacement, if any.
I would think Blair is on the case.
Ryan, Fawcett, Koschitzke, Bauer
Despite all being young & in development, none certain to be a long term replacement, if any.
I would think Blair is on the case.
Yup JUH.... what a farce that was!
They should have made a rule for the JON draft.
It could have been the "Stupidity Compensation Pick Rule" to assist teams that accidentally call out a 4th rounder with their first pick... or did we actually mean to make that selection? Over to you Greg Miller!
Bennnny
Punt Road End. The best place to watch The Tiges.
They have no father sons as yet, they have worked hard to get these kids happening and you whinge about it. Player development.
I have no problem with the Suns developing these kids, its actually great for the game overall and is needed as the AFL continues to expand with a 19th and probably a 20th team, but its the cost that really gets me. How can the Suns take a haul as good as they have, and still be left with a massive haul for next year too.
I'll take a quick look and see how they turned their 2023 picks into what they turned out with.
I personally don't think a radical change needs to be made, but the discount should only be in place for your 1st pick and then reduces, potentially turning into a bid premium (on a points base but can still be matched with later picks).
I'm not whinging about it. Like Poshy, I'm happy for the Suns to get access to their academy kids. Its great for football if Queensland (&NSW) develop more footballers, and great if they get the opportunity to study in this state.
But the points system is a farce totally against the supposed equalisation the AFL goes on about. It was a farce when the Pies got Daicos and it was a farce when the Dogs got JUH.
It only requires a minor tweak, instead of 3rd & 4th rounders, matching bids must come from the same round and NOT junk picks that were not going to be used on actual players. You could even have a cap on the picks being used, eg. maximum of 2 picks for every matching bid.
Unfirtunately where does that leave our 2024 draft hand?
We need to find a system that keeps trading 1st rounders for 3rd and 4th, or phases in the change over 2 years
I don't think it should be that rigid.
For example, lets assume this situation occurs again for GC. They have 3 first round picks, they should have access to all 3, so how do they go around bringing in 3 first rounders. Its certainly a conumdrum so I think there should be options, and the best way to deal with that is via the use of discounting / premiums IMO.
We all like the romance of F/S's too, so I don't think we want to be building roadblocks to blocking this either.
So I've taken a look at Gold Coasts picks at the start of the year and the impact of trading etc thats occurred this year. It was a little tricky to match picks up, so I've done this in a sort of collective manner.
So they started the season with 4,512 points, mainly due to the Rankine trade but also partly due to some 2022 pick swaps and the Ben Long trade to the Saints so they started with a handy haul. They then lost 757 points due to the impact of compensation picks and Norths PP. They are now at 3,755 points.
During the trade period they traded several players out (Burgess, Hollands and Chol) for a collective gain in points from those 3 trades of 1,026 though some of this was deferred into 2024 (Hawthorn traded Brisbanes F2 for Chol), so about a gain of 504 points in 2023. This takes their points to 4,259 points.
As part of their pre-draft trading, they traded in 2 additional picks for 2024 (Bulldogs 1st and Norths 2nd PP - 20) making a gain in points for 2024 of 2,307. They ended the pre-draft trade period with picks equalling 3,877 points despite moving that 2,307 into 2024, so made a gain in 2023 on these trades of 1,925 points. They then gained a further 672 points at the draft.
In total they enjoined a gain of 4,904 points via trading (2,307 in 2024, 1,925 from pre-draft trading and 672 during the draft). They then enjoyed a discount on the back of this of 1,170 points, for a collective gain of 6,074 equivalent to 2 number 1 draft picks!!
Now we should regard this as an extreme case that may never be repeated again, but we still need some adjustments.
My view is simple.
1st pick - Same rules as currently apply. 20% discount regardless of where bid / 1st picks are made / owned.
2nd pick - If you have a pick in the same round, same rules apply otherwise discount is removed and 10% premium added
3rd pick - No discount available, if you have a pick in the same round, pay 100% of pick value, if later rounds, 20% premium is paid
4th pick - No discount available, if you have a pick in the same round, pay 100% of pick value, if later rounds, 30% premium is paid
Each further pick (unlikely to occur, increases premium by 10% each time).
So lets take a look at how this would have worked for GC. I'm going to assume that all their trading still remains including the draft day trading.
Walter - Bid on at 3 - Need 1,787 to match. Use Picks 26,30 and 32 and get back Pick 60 - Discount remains at 447 points
Read - Bid on at 9 - Need 1,616 to match (including 10% premium). Use Picks 34, 38, 40 and 44 and get back Pick 57 - Premium paid of 147 points
Rogers - Bid on at 14 - Need 1,393 to match (including 20% premium). Use Picks 45, 49, 55, 57, 58, 60 and 62 and get back Pick 67 - Premium paid of 232 points
Graham - Bid on at 26 - Need 948 to match (including 30% premium). Use remaining Picks of 52, 62 and 67. Deficit of 574 and they wouldn't have traded as much into 2024. Premium paid of 219 points.
I'd be open to changing the mix up a little bit further. Potentially changing the rules to below as potentially the above doesn't go further enough to balancing the gain that the academy / F/S owner gets over the rest of the competition. For example above, GC can still use later picks to match all bids, and essentially the premium paid to do so is 151 points (Pick 60).
This is probably the next stage.
1st pick - If you have a pick in the same round, same rules apply otherwise discount is removed and 10% premium added
2nd pick - If you have a pick in the same round, same rules apply otherwise discount is removed and 20% premium added
3rd pick - No discount available, if you have a pick in the same round, pay 100% of pick value, if later rounds, 30% premium is paid
4th pick - No discount available, if you have a pick in the same round, pay 100% of pick value, if later rounds, 40% premium is paid
Each further pick (unlikely to occur, increases premium by 10% each time).
I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule that you need a pick in the same round in order to be able to match, but there shouldn't be a discount for matching with later picks, more so a premium.
In the latter scenario, GCS had enough points for Walter and Read but left with a deficit of 584 points for Rogers and needing 1,021 points to match Graham so would be short by 1,605 points which they wouldn't have been able to trade picks into 2024 under those circumstances.
As an overall view, under the current system GC needed 4,423 points to match the 3 players. Under the 1st proposal they would have needed 5,744 and under the last one 6,750.
Regardless of what the system was, they would have matched all 4 players anyway, they just wouldn't have this ridiculously good hand for 2024 on top of drafting those 4 players in 2023.
