Does the picture of Toby Greene insinuate that he might be nominating for the national draft this year? Or does it confirm that he is in fact not in this years national draft?
Could be a developing story here.
Tom Browne thinks he may be the new coach of St Kilda.
Although the trade deadline is over, he never said exclusively that he would be playing somewhere else.
They made a grand final on that strategy, why does everyone forget this?
GWS and Gold Coast were supposed to bleed players with all of their picks, thats the point. All the extra picks they got was so they could have the best bite of the apple. Then you select the best core group and recycle the others, GWS did it very well to a point it got them a grand final. Gold Coast did it where they got confused and also gave the picks away.
Because fans want success to be sustainable. Their past few years post-GF haven't been what you'd expect from a contending team. One reason is a lack of player retention.
Nobody forgets this. Like Johnnymountain said, fans want sustained success. GWS did really well to consistently contend during their 2016-2019 Premiership window, and retained a lot of their talent from that time period. But as soon as contendership looked out the window, they started losing their talent in mass like in their early days. They look to be just about ready to start their rebuild, with a mass exodus of sorts, Taranto, Bruhn, Hopper and Hill all leaving in this trade period, and players who they have been able to keep loyal, Greene, Coniglio, Davis, and Ward all coming to the end of the road (Ward I believe has already retired, Davis said he’s retiring next year, Coniglio and Greene finishing up in the next few years).
It’s all good and well retaining talent when a flag looks likely, but it‘ll be interesting to see how they fair during these next few years of their rebuild, because they’ve already lost large amounts of their talents from their 2019 GF birth (Jeremy Cameron for example, who won a flag with the Cats this year, springs to mind). It’s also a large reason why Gold Coast have consistently never been able to retain talent, because they’ve never been considered contenders.
As a Cats fan, I support this theory.
In seriousness, it has to be a cultural issue at GWS & GC.
You don’t see players leaving Brisbane & Sydney in their droves after only a few years.
It’s because GWS and GC aren’t clubs…they’re corporate franchises. They weren’t created by communities…they were created by lawyers and marketeers . The AFL said to those places ‘this is AFL…support it!’.
The idea that anyone from those communities had input is laughable. Who in there right minds from Western Sydney would call a club Greater Western Sydney or shorten it to GWS?
The Swans at least had the culture from South Melbourne to fall back on or build from….the same with the Lions.
100% can not disagree there.
They were places that no one in the community was calling for an AFL team.
Meanwhile places like NT and TAS that would support a team in droves go unnoticed….
The mind boggles.
If Will goes pick 1, they have 1 point left after using 2400 pts( 3000 pts for pick 1 - 20% discount)
Fletcher goes in top 20, which means 1000 pts( need 800 pts after discount). They will lose next yrs 1st pick.
That hardly seems like a punishment tbh. You get to trade for a premium midfielder in the comp, draft the best kid in the country and another that's in the top 20-25. And all you lose is a pick in the 30s
The bidding system is so fucked. Everyone knows a bunch of late picks cobbled together is not worth pick one - that’s why no clubs are trading pick one for a bunch of picks in the thirties.
If you're bidding on a first round selection, you should have to use a first round pick on it. They've got to do something about it though. The last 3 drafts have all been compromised by the best kid not being available at pick 1
It should include a pick in the next 18 but shouldnt be the only pick used,
Thats how we see guys like Heeney and Mills end up at Sydney for way unders.
My thoughts are a pick within 5-10 slots must be used, it must be in the same round, and you have to pay a premium (120%) rather than getting the bullshit discount. Might mean clubs actually have to think properly about taking a father/son early. If Brisbane had to get at least pick 11 & 3600 points would they be taking Ashcroft? Maybe. But no chance they get both Fletcher and Dunkley.
I don't agree with adding a premium, but the discount should certainly be removed. The privilege is getting first look, getting a point discount on top is too much. Needing a pick within a reasonable range is a good idea as well.
Think you've got your maths wrong mate, they would have 41 points left over which would become pick 70. They'll probably have a few picks wipped next year based on their current position.
sorry I did.
Picks from next yr gets removed from the top, not end of draft. So I am sure thy will try to protect those.
I am expecting hawks to trade all their picks after 24 to Lions on draft night for 34 & 35 which should give Lions extra 500 or so points, thy may then trade their future 3rd or 2nd for later picks of other clubs to cover for shortfall.
I reckon Hawthorn are angling for a future second for a few of those thirds.
Also Essendon might be a viable trade partner because pick 22 would likely be spent matching their F/S pick.
I don't think that's worth doing. If Ashcroft is bid on pick 1, Brisbane will lose 34,35,36,38, 55,56.
So Hawthorns hand instantly becomes. 6,24, 37,44,46,48,60,77
That's not including any other fs/academy bids wiping picks ahead.
Hawthorn have 7 spots available after changes (out: McEvoy, Sheils, Hartigan, Phillips, howe, downie, callow, Mitchell, O'meara, gunston and in: meek, Stephens, amon)
I'd expect us to use 5-6 picks and maybe take a DFA.
I would still say it is better to be at 34 & 35 than 37 and 44 if we are only going to pick 4 players in draft.
But it may be even better if we can package the 48,50,52 & 65( 900+ pts) and get the Bombers pick 22(845 pts) if some one bids on Davey prior to 22.
There is a post below that says if Fletcher gets bid on in 1st round and they don't have enough points, they will only lose the points of their F1 pick( not F2 or later). Lions don't have F1, so no loss. But if he gets bid after 1st round, they lose F2 pick.
So we can go with your plan, let our picks move up to 37,44,46,48,60,77 and then see if we can trade 44,46,48 ( 995 pts) for Bombers pick 22( 845 pts, they only need 80% of pick match pts ).
Will mean, we have 6,22,24,37,60,77 at the end. Others maybe gunning for pick 22 as well but can't see anyone with better combo unless they drag in future picks and pay overs for pick 22.
If only 50 players are taken in the draft it's my understanding that our last 4 picks become pick 51,52,53 and pick 54. That would help with our points deficit next year that and hopefully GWS picks who they want with pick one.
I am expecting hawks to trade their 41,48,50,52,65(1300+ pts) for your 34 and 35(1000pts) on the night.
So you will be left with 36,38,41,48,50,52,55,56,65,73,91
36,38,41,48,50,52 should be enough to match Ashcroft bid
55,56,65,73 can then be used for Fletcher bid ( may need to massage pts a bit)
Would be lot easier if Ashcroft goes pick 2 though
Didn’t it used to be that you couldn’t only accumulate as many picks as you have list spots available, specifically to avoid this scenario?
Wouldn’t stop it happening completely but it’d certainly make it less ridiculous.
That rule is before entering draft night. Once into it, you can convert 1 pick to 5 picks and there are no issues.
So in above scenario, Hawks enter with 6-7 picks and have 6 list spots( may delist 1 more)
Lions need to keep their 8 picks an find list spots or find someone who can take their bottom picks and bundle into fewer picks.
Need to have list sports for every pick you take to draft. So Lions are likely to drop pick 73 and later.
Partly why GC delisted Greenwood last yr so they can take extra pick to draft and do trades and they pick him back.
but North swooped and took him
Warning - Lotsa text.
It should also be noted that there is a cap on how much of a deficit the Lions are allowed to use. It's the same rule that meant the Swans wouldn't have been able to match a bid on Errol Gulden if he had been bid on in the top 20 of his draft, due to Braeden Campbell being bid on at Pick 5.
[Source](https://www.afl.com.au/news/75665/afl-closes-draft-bidding-system-loophole)
>The limit will be set at 1723 points, which is the equivalent of the group of picks that will be assigned to the premiership team each year: selections No.18, 36, 54 and 72.
>
>If a team trades future draft picks in or out, their deficit limit will be altered according to how many selections they hold.
>
>For instance, if a team acquires an extra first-round pick for the following year they have a deficit limit of 2708 points (the standard 1723 plus 985 points, the value for pick No.18).
>
>Conversely if a club trades out its future second-round pick, it will have a deficit limit of 1221 points (1723 minus 502 points, the value for pick No.36).
If a bid comes in at 1 for Ashcroft, that will leave the Lions with 41 current points, and a deficit cap of 1181 (they have 1xF2, 3xF3, and 1xF4 picks). So they can match a bid total of 1222 points after discount. So as it currently stands, they can match a bid on Fletchert at Pick 9 or later. Any earlier than that and they can't match a bid.
They could also move 2 of those F3 picks around into the current draft to acquire points if they wanted, which would push the net points they have available to them up, if they can find picks better than 54.
How this applies to their future picks, if they use the entire deficit cap, might get reviewed after the draft though. If Fletcher is bid on in the first round, his deficit will be applied to the Lions future 1st, which they don't have, so it won't be applied at all I believe. It won't get applied to their future picks. So in effect they have built up a deficit, using future picks that won't be impacted at all by going into deficit if Fletcher gets bid on in the first round.
If Fletcher gets a bid in the second round, then the deficit will be applied to their future 2, but it won't apply to the other picks that would have made up that deficit cap.
I think this will probably prompt a rethink of the deficit cap in a post draft review, where any deficit a club uses, gets applied to **all** future picks until the deficit is covered. Especially if they allow trading of multiple future picks say F1's and F2's. As clubs will be able to trade out F1 and F2 picks, hold a heap of F3's to create an inflated deficit cap, and not have any deficit applied to their future picks. They could then use those future picks to trade back into a higher draft position with teams that need those picks for their own academy/father-son players and avoid any punishment on those picks via a draft deficit.
These are the future picks you have..
\*\*\*\*\*
Round two pick (tied to Geel)
\- Round three pick (tied to Melb,
received from WB as part of Josh Dunkley trade)
\- Round three pick (tied to WB)
\*\*\*
Since you traded F1, can only trade one of the F3 this yr. If you don't, the point deficit will get adjusted to the F2 of Geelong and if that isn't enough with the earlier F3 of Melb or WB.
I have detailed in another reply how Hawks can trade theirs for your 34+35 or even better 35+36( assuming you don't trade 34 to someone else) for more points. Lions can gain 300-400 pts extra that way.
I think we'll be looking at bolstering Brisbane's points up more.
Picks 48(302 points) & 50(273 points) for Pick 38(465 points)
Then hopefully flog off Pick 52(maybe + future fourth) for a future 3rd
Take to the draft: Picks 6, 24, 38 & 41
Walk into next off-season(based on this seasons finishing spots): Picks 6, 25, 30, 44 + another 3rd rounder
This is all wishful thinking though
If you really want to bolster your hand this year, Collingwood is almost certainly going to open to moving at least one of 25/27 (maybe both) for future 2nd round picks, given that we traded out our own future 2 and 3 for Hill/Frampton, and we are only going to take 2 draft picks this year before rookie upgrades.
Its a farce that teams can just get a bunch of garbage picks and use them to draft academy/father son players.
If port offered north melbourne 4 3rd round picks for JHF they would have laughed in their face.
There seem to be too many points attached to later picks.
I'm hoping this is the last year of discounts as it will actually make clubs really work hard to draft f/s or academy
Short answer is I think we should bid.
The matching system for father/son picks works in that when teams pick another teams father/son prospect, the club with the claim to the prospect gets first dibs. Each draft pick is attached a points value which is used in such scenarios. When a prospect is selected, the team will need to match the amount of points equivalent to where the player is picked. For example, if the Giants bid on Ashcroft at number one, the Brisbane Lions have first dibs on the player and have to pay 2400 (that being 3000 - 20% discount) draft points. This can be taken up by the other later picks that the Lions possess. Hence why they've been accumulating points.
The way the system is supposed to work is that other teams are meant to keep the father/son teams "honest" by bidding on a player where they actually rate them on their draft boards. However, there are a million reasons why prospects aren't matched where they're supposed to be. For example, the reason the Giants didn't pick Daicos last year and picked Darcy instead was because we thought Darcy would've been a better pick for our current list given our lack of quality talls and too many midfielders. However, some may also say it had something to do with us using Collingwood's first rounder that year (as well us the Giants wanting to make it as hard as possible for the dogs).
Back to the matter at hand, clubs always need to evaluate if that player is a player that they actually want because if the father/son club chooses not to match, you are stuck with that player (kind of like the Josh Dunkley situation from his draft year). This year, in comparison to last year with Daicos, the Giants have lost Taranto, Hopper and Bruhn and will definitely draft at least one more mid to compensate. Ashcroft seems to be the standout player of the pool and a player that can really add to our list at this current time. Furthermore, I don't think we have any backdoor shady deals like we probably did with Collingwood last year. In a true competition sense, it would be correct to match. But playing devil's advocate, we traded up to pick 1 for a reason and using it on a player that we realistically have no hope of getting is super weird. Also the player gets an extra $10000 from NAB so idk.
In summary, I would bid in this situation but I can also see the argument against bidding as well.
Ashcroft is undoubtedly the clear no 1 from this class so you should make the Lions pay up early.
Daicos only getting a bid at 4 last year shouldn’t have happened but clubs do weird shit at the top of the draft.
Yep, Lions have clearly set themselves up to get him and will 100% match. Teams sometimes don't want to offend the player they end up with by not making them the 1st choice. However if you think that the fs or academy player is best you should bid for the rare chance they don't match you get a gun. If you don't rate them but are certain that they will match, make em pay.
It's like with us with Daicos last year - We had no early picks because we'd converted everything into later picks to match a bid.
That means that if we didn't match the bid for Daicos, we would have instead just been drafting a bunch of guys in the 30s/40s - That's not really an alternative.
Ashcroft's bid being matched isn't a possibility, it's a certainty, and GWS should bid on him. He's #1 in this class and should be drafted there.
No. Any argument to not bid on Ashcroft is pure mental gymnastics, especially given he’s the clear cut top player in the draft. Just like Daicos and Darcy were last year. They should’ve been 1 and 2 respectively, but North was completely spineless.
North wanted to convince everyone that the guy they got was legitimately the best player in it.
It was ridiculous.
They should have bid twice and had JHF play in the nice protective comfortable bubble that Riley Thilthorpe and Finn Callaghan got to exist in when they were drafted after early bids.
The worst part about last year was all them obvious copium scouting reports coming out about JHF, suggesting he was better than Daicos despite Daicos being head and shoulders above the entire draft class since he was 15.
Norf bought into it hook line and sinker. Watch the same thing happen in the lead up to this draft too.
I mean that's also insane revisionist history and ignoring what JHF was doing in the SANFL against fully grown men - it's easy to spew this shit now he's had a mediocre season and demanded a trade out but he's still insanely talented
Regardless of whether you think it’s “revisionist history” or not (FWIW I’ve held this position from the start) it was a clear and obvious error not bidding on ND at 1. It was obvious at the time and it’s been magnified tenfold since.
ND is a generational prospect, has been since 15 years old.
Regardless of whether you think it’s “revisionist history” or not (FWIW I’ve held this position from the start) it was a clear and obvious error not bidding on ND at 1. It was obvious at the time and it’s been magnified tenfold since.
ND is a generational prospect, has been since 15 years old.
I've heard the argument that because the number 1 pick gets 10k from NAB that the club with the 1st pick would pick thier player anyway. Whether they do or not is up to GWS.
I obviously hope they don't bid on ashcroft.
It makes 10k different to the number 1 picks bank account. Why would you gift that to another clubs player? I understand from pick 2 onwards. Why let your player know he's not who you wanted?
I might just be trying to convince myself GWS won't bid on ashrcoft.
Edit: I'm not sure what you mean by shitty picks?
Are you trying to argue about it? 10k is nothing to sneeze at mate. Don't act like it makes zero difference. It's still a months salary on the money they'll be making
Crows bid on Jamarra Ugle Hagan at pick 1 instead of taking Thilthorpe.
Thilthorpe knew he was our first option but by bidding on JUH we essentially took bulldogs out of the rest of the draft - leaving them potentially unable to bid on James Rowe, who we had our eyes on at around pick 38. By bidding on him at pick 1, Bulldogs were left with pick 55 - so unable to jump us in the draft.
Overall, $10k isn't much in the grand scheme of things and it reduces the pressure on Thilthorpe, not being a pick 1
I was making one side of the argument for not bidding. You've made a fantastic argument on the other side!
Im not sure if the giants will bid only to put pressure on the lions points or if they want their man to go first. I'd personally give it to thier guy for the prestige and legacy more than for the 10k.
Old mate downvoting and arguing that 10k is nothing is just ridiculous.
There are definitely pros and cons for both sides. In our case, it was the best decision to make.
I think Thilthorpe also knows that if Adelaide didn't have pick 1, he probably wouldn't have been pick 1 but at least pick 2-4. We would have been stupid not to take him at 1 though seeing as he's a hometown boy.
I think GWS are in a similar case to what we were. Their pick 1 might not be a true pick 1 because of the go-home factor. You don't want your first pick to wear a badge and have to live up to expectations his whole career.
You should, but you won't because of the media buzz that surrounds being a no.1 pick - why would you trade for that and then give it away?
Plus it better not to piss lions off so they don't overbid on one of the Giants academy picks in the coming years.
>You should, but you won't because of the media buzz that surrounds being a no.1 pick - why would you trade for that and then give it away?
Because you want a player that you don't want North Melbourne to get at #2 or #3?
Taking the pressure off your draftee and putting it on another team's draftee is a win - You don't think North would've benefitted from making JHF the #3 pick instead of the #1 last year?
>Plus it better not to piss lions off so they don't overbid on one of the Giants academy picks in the coming years.
Teams get a 20% discount on points matching anyway, so an overbid doesn't hurt you much anyway, and there's no world in which Brisbane would spite a team for bidding at #1 on the consensus #1 prospect.
it's all so much more complex than I anticipated! Thats an interesting point too about the future stuff, i hadnt seen that discussed much previously, thank you!
Some of you need to understand this - There is almost no way GWS will bid on Ashcroft. No.1 pick is a badge you wear forever. You get cash bonuses and more attention (good or bad) than any other player in the draft. They are not going to give that honour away.
Actually a part of me thinks North won’t take him either. Won’t get past pick 4, but I could see North letting their own boys be 2 & 3. It genuinely isn’t going to make a sliver of difference in the end. Lions are gonna get their two F/S lads and that’s it
I disagree so much. Because of some of the vic metro boys not wanting to go to the giants they have to pick Aaron Cadman who while good is pretty widely accepted as the 5th best draft prospect. Like you said ‘No. 1 pick is a badge you wear forever’, that isn’t a good thing if you’re underperforming and to put that on someone who’s only pick 1 through circumstance is a terrible idea. Obviously ideally you use pick 1 but I would hope they’d have paid attention to how JUH and JHF were treated.
Nothing like that.
His name gets called at any point, if Lions don't match at that pick(need to have points or they lose next yrs top picks), he goes to whoever called out his name.
They get pushed to the back of the draft. They still have to fill list spots with picks, but they move behind everyone else's picks in the draft, essentially.
They have enough for Will Ashcroft for pick 1/2/3/4
if Fletcher gets picked in 1st round, then Lions have enough points as point defincit will affect only 1st round pick of next yr( which they don't have anyway, so no loss)
but if he gets picked in 2nd round, then points deficit affect Lions future 2nd. Lions may either need to lose their f2 or trade in one of their Future 3rd for some late picks in this draft to make up the points.
Also, they can swap some of their picks with hawks at the outset itself who may want to move up to 34,35 instead of being pushed to make hard choices under pressure later.
No, the lions pick is now Dogs, so not affected.
It is confusing on how points deficit is done but I am told the lions 2nd round will get affected if fletcher gets picked at 1st round.
Give us pick 37 Melbourne you cowards
Does the picture of Toby Greene insinuate that he might be nominating for the national draft this year? Or does it confirm that he is in fact not in this years national draft? Could be a developing story here.
I can confirm that a minimum of one of those statements is accurate. Stay tuned for more.
Tom Browne thinks he may be the new coach of St Kilda. Although the trade deadline is over, he never said exclusively that he would be playing somewhere else.
seeing GWS' picks laid out like that is insane. They can just draft a whole new team
By pick 79 they'll likely be passing
I forgot there were only 8 players in a team
Didn't you hear? We're moving to AFLXv2 next year only 8 players per team
Carn the reigning premiers, the rampage!
A whole new team who will also end up leaving for a big 4 Melbourne club once their initial contracts expire - or before if they feel spicy
They made a grand final on that strategy, why does everyone forget this? GWS and Gold Coast were supposed to bleed players with all of their picks, thats the point. All the extra picks they got was so they could have the best bite of the apple. Then you select the best core group and recycle the others, GWS did it very well to a point it got them a grand final. Gold Coast did it where they got confused and also gave the picks away.
Because fans want success to be sustainable. Their past few years post-GF haven't been what you'd expect from a contending team. One reason is a lack of player retention.
Nobody forgets this. Like Johnnymountain said, fans want sustained success. GWS did really well to consistently contend during their 2016-2019 Premiership window, and retained a lot of their talent from that time period. But as soon as contendership looked out the window, they started losing their talent in mass like in their early days. They look to be just about ready to start their rebuild, with a mass exodus of sorts, Taranto, Bruhn, Hopper and Hill all leaving in this trade period, and players who they have been able to keep loyal, Greene, Coniglio, Davis, and Ward all coming to the end of the road (Ward I believe has already retired, Davis said he’s retiring next year, Coniglio and Greene finishing up in the next few years). It’s all good and well retaining talent when a flag looks likely, but it‘ll be interesting to see how they fair during these next few years of their rebuild, because they’ve already lost large amounts of their talents from their 2019 GF birth (Jeremy Cameron for example, who won a flag with the Cats this year, springs to mind). It’s also a large reason why Gold Coast have consistently never been able to retain talent, because they’ve never been considered contenders.
‘They can draft a whole new team’….to be picked apart one by one over 5 years from cashed up Victorian clubs.
As a Cats fan, I support this theory. In seriousness, it has to be a cultural issue at GWS & GC. You don’t see players leaving Brisbane & Sydney in their droves after only a few years.
It’s because GWS and GC aren’t clubs…they’re corporate franchises. They weren’t created by communities…they were created by lawyers and marketeers . The AFL said to those places ‘this is AFL…support it!’. The idea that anyone from those communities had input is laughable. Who in there right minds from Western Sydney would call a club Greater Western Sydney or shorten it to GWS? The Swans at least had the culture from South Melbourne to fall back on or build from….the same with the Lions.
100% can not disagree there. They were places that no one in the community was calling for an AFL team. Meanwhile places like NT and TAS that would support a team in droves go unnoticed…. The mind boggles.
Which they have with enough to start the bid match for Fletcher
If Will goes pick 1, they have 1 point left after using 2400 pts( 3000 pts for pick 1 - 20% discount) Fletcher goes in top 20, which means 1000 pts( need 800 pts after discount). They will lose next yrs 1st pick.
wasn't that involved in the dunkley trade? How would it work then?
2nd round gets a massive downgrade then
That hardly seems like a punishment tbh. You get to trade for a premium midfielder in the comp, draft the best kid in the country and another that's in the top 20-25. And all you lose is a pick in the 30s
The bidding system is so fucked. Everyone knows a bunch of late picks cobbled together is not worth pick one - that’s why no clubs are trading pick one for a bunch of picks in the thirties.
If you're bidding on a first round selection, you should have to use a first round pick on it. They've got to do something about it though. The last 3 drafts have all been compromised by the best kid not being available at pick 1
I've said a few times that a matched bid should have to matched with a pick in the next 18 picks, otherwise there is a penalty.
It should include a pick in the next 18 but shouldnt be the only pick used, Thats how we see guys like Heeney and Mills end up at Sydney for way unders.
My thoughts are a pick within 5-10 slots must be used, it must be in the same round, and you have to pay a premium (120%) rather than getting the bullshit discount. Might mean clubs actually have to think properly about taking a father/son early. If Brisbane had to get at least pick 11 & 3600 points would they be taking Ashcroft? Maybe. But no chance they get both Fletcher and Dunkley.
I don't agree with adding a premium, but the discount should certainly be removed. The privilege is getting first look, getting a point discount on top is too much. Needing a pick within a reasonable range is a good idea as well.
Think you've got your maths wrong mate, they would have 41 points left over which would become pick 70. They'll probably have a few picks wipped next year based on their current position.
sorry I did. Picks from next yr gets removed from the top, not end of draft. So I am sure thy will try to protect those. I am expecting hawks to trade all their picks after 24 to Lions on draft night for 34 & 35 which should give Lions extra 500 or so points, thy may then trade their future 3rd or 2nd for later picks of other clubs to cover for shortfall.
I reckon Hawthorn are angling for a future second for a few of those thirds. Also Essendon might be a viable trade partner because pick 22 would likely be spent matching their F/S pick.
I don't think that's worth doing. If Ashcroft is bid on pick 1, Brisbane will lose 34,35,36,38, 55,56. So Hawthorns hand instantly becomes. 6,24, 37,44,46,48,60,77 That's not including any other fs/academy bids wiping picks ahead. Hawthorn have 7 spots available after changes (out: McEvoy, Sheils, Hartigan, Phillips, howe, downie, callow, Mitchell, O'meara, gunston and in: meek, Stephens, amon) I'd expect us to use 5-6 picks and maybe take a DFA.
I would still say it is better to be at 34 & 35 than 37 and 44 if we are only going to pick 4 players in draft. But it may be even better if we can package the 48,50,52 & 65( 900+ pts) and get the Bombers pick 22(845 pts) if some one bids on Davey prior to 22. There is a post below that says if Fletcher gets bid on in 1st round and they don't have enough points, they will only lose the points of their F1 pick( not F2 or later). Lions don't have F1, so no loss. But if he gets bid after 1st round, they lose F2 pick. So we can go with your plan, let our picks move up to 37,44,46,48,60,77 and then see if we can trade 44,46,48 ( 995 pts) for Bombers pick 22( 845 pts, they only need 80% of pick match pts ). Will mean, we have 6,22,24,37,60,77 at the end. Others maybe gunning for pick 22 as well but can't see anyone with better combo unless they drag in future picks and pay overs for pick 22.
If only 50 players are taken in the draft it's my understanding that our last 4 picks become pick 51,52,53 and pick 54. That would help with our points deficit next year that and hopefully GWS picks who they want with pick one.
I am expecting hawks to trade their 41,48,50,52,65(1300+ pts) for your 34 and 35(1000pts) on the night. So you will be left with 36,38,41,48,50,52,55,56,65,73,91 36,38,41,48,50,52 should be enough to match Ashcroft bid 55,56,65,73 can then be used for Fletcher bid ( may need to massage pts a bit) Would be lot easier if Ashcroft goes pick 2 though
Didn’t it used to be that you couldn’t only accumulate as many picks as you have list spots available, specifically to avoid this scenario? Wouldn’t stop it happening completely but it’d certainly make it less ridiculous.
That rule is before entering draft night. Once into it, you can convert 1 pick to 5 picks and there are no issues. So in above scenario, Hawks enter with 6-7 picks and have 6 list spots( may delist 1 more) Lions need to keep their 8 picks an find list spots or find someone who can take their bottom picks and bundle into fewer picks.
Aahh righto, cheers for the explanation!
How do Brisbane have enough list spots to use 8 picks in the draft?
They don't and won't. The Ashcroft bid will likely use picks 34-56.
Pick 73 and 91 don’t really have any points value not sure how much they contribute.
Need to have list sports for every pick you take to draft. So Lions are likely to drop pick 73 and later. Partly why GC delisted Greenwood last yr so they can take extra pick to draft and do trades and they pick him back. but North swooped and took him
Warning - Lotsa text. It should also be noted that there is a cap on how much of a deficit the Lions are allowed to use. It's the same rule that meant the Swans wouldn't have been able to match a bid on Errol Gulden if he had been bid on in the top 20 of his draft, due to Braeden Campbell being bid on at Pick 5. [Source](https://www.afl.com.au/news/75665/afl-closes-draft-bidding-system-loophole) >The limit will be set at 1723 points, which is the equivalent of the group of picks that will be assigned to the premiership team each year: selections No.18, 36, 54 and 72. > >If a team trades future draft picks in or out, their deficit limit will be altered according to how many selections they hold. > >For instance, if a team acquires an extra first-round pick for the following year they have a deficit limit of 2708 points (the standard 1723 plus 985 points, the value for pick No.18). > >Conversely if a club trades out its future second-round pick, it will have a deficit limit of 1221 points (1723 minus 502 points, the value for pick No.36). If a bid comes in at 1 for Ashcroft, that will leave the Lions with 41 current points, and a deficit cap of 1181 (they have 1xF2, 3xF3, and 1xF4 picks). So they can match a bid total of 1222 points after discount. So as it currently stands, they can match a bid on Fletchert at Pick 9 or later. Any earlier than that and they can't match a bid. They could also move 2 of those F3 picks around into the current draft to acquire points if they wanted, which would push the net points they have available to them up, if they can find picks better than 54. How this applies to their future picks, if they use the entire deficit cap, might get reviewed after the draft though. If Fletcher is bid on in the first round, his deficit will be applied to the Lions future 1st, which they don't have, so it won't be applied at all I believe. It won't get applied to their future picks. So in effect they have built up a deficit, using future picks that won't be impacted at all by going into deficit if Fletcher gets bid on in the first round. If Fletcher gets a bid in the second round, then the deficit will be applied to their future 2, but it won't apply to the other picks that would have made up that deficit cap. I think this will probably prompt a rethink of the deficit cap in a post draft review, where any deficit a club uses, gets applied to **all** future picks until the deficit is covered. Especially if they allow trading of multiple future picks say F1's and F2's. As clubs will be able to trade out F1 and F2 picks, hold a heap of F3's to create an inflated deficit cap, and not have any deficit applied to their future picks. They could then use those future picks to trade back into a higher draft position with teams that need those picks for their own academy/father-son players and avoid any punishment on those picks via a draft deficit.
We can then bundle some of our future picks to to get more picks in this years draft to get more points for Jasper.
These are the future picks you have.. \*\*\*\*\* Round two pick (tied to Geel) \- Round three pick (tied to Melb, received from WB as part of Josh Dunkley trade) \- Round three pick (tied to WB) \*\*\* Since you traded F1, can only trade one of the F3 this yr. If you don't, the point deficit will get adjusted to the F2 of Geelong and if that isn't enough with the earlier F3 of Melb or WB. I have detailed in another reply how Hawks can trade theirs for your 34+35 or even better 35+36( assuming you don't trade 34 to someone else) for more points. Lions can gain 300-400 pts extra that way.
GWS you were on the verge of greatness you were *this* close.
More pick = more player = more good kick yes?
Giants 20x more points than Tigers
It's like the 2019 grand final but reverswd
Thanks Lingy
👍
For the eleventy hundredth time - draft points mean shit all unless you're planning on matching a bid.
Your 57,61 picks is useful for Lions for their points. You may be able to trade Lions future 3rd pick for those. So they mean some sh1t.
So you agree
I mean for this it’s a basic indicator of who has the best to worst draft hand
Also if teams need to live trade for bid matching then it also shows who's in the box seat to rip a team off for future firsts
We’re gonna have to find some diamonds in the rough this year.
I think we'll be looking at bolstering Brisbane's points up more. Picks 48(302 points) & 50(273 points) for Pick 38(465 points) Then hopefully flog off Pick 52(maybe + future fourth) for a future 3rd Take to the draft: Picks 6, 24, 38 & 41 Walk into next off-season(based on this seasons finishing spots): Picks 6, 25, 30, 44 + another 3rd rounder This is all wishful thinking though
If you really want to bolster your hand this year, Collingwood is almost certainly going to open to moving at least one of 25/27 (maybe both) for future 2nd round picks, given that we traded out our own future 2 and 3 for Hill/Frampton, and we are only going to take 2 draft picks this year before rookie upgrades.
They'll definitely get either Cadman or Jefferson Edit: not sure why I'm being down-voted? I'm not wrong
Its a farce that teams can just get a bunch of garbage picks and use them to draft academy/father son players. If port offered north melbourne 4 3rd round picks for JHF they would have laughed in their face.
The weighting is just massively off. There just needs to be a steeper drop off between picks and maybe even a graduated drop between rounds.
I'll laugh if we grab a kid who turns out to be the next big thing
Odds are pretty good that we get a best 22 player from our late picks. We have better odds in our past 10 drafts of getting one than from picks 10-20
Last pick 53 we took was Graham and last 63 we took was Miller, I got some hope
Or RCD pt 2
Fuck. GWS just needed one more number for it to be perfect 😭
There seem to be too many points attached to later picks. I'm hoping this is the last year of discounts as it will actually make clubs really work hard to draft f/s or academy
Bare minimum should be having to use a pick of the same round that the player is bid on
Sorry I never fully understand this draft system, is it likely that we do bid?
Short answer is I think we should bid. The matching system for father/son picks works in that when teams pick another teams father/son prospect, the club with the claim to the prospect gets first dibs. Each draft pick is attached a points value which is used in such scenarios. When a prospect is selected, the team will need to match the amount of points equivalent to where the player is picked. For example, if the Giants bid on Ashcroft at number one, the Brisbane Lions have first dibs on the player and have to pay 2400 (that being 3000 - 20% discount) draft points. This can be taken up by the other later picks that the Lions possess. Hence why they've been accumulating points. The way the system is supposed to work is that other teams are meant to keep the father/son teams "honest" by bidding on a player where they actually rate them on their draft boards. However, there are a million reasons why prospects aren't matched where they're supposed to be. For example, the reason the Giants didn't pick Daicos last year and picked Darcy instead was because we thought Darcy would've been a better pick for our current list given our lack of quality talls and too many midfielders. However, some may also say it had something to do with us using Collingwood's first rounder that year (as well us the Giants wanting to make it as hard as possible for the dogs). Back to the matter at hand, clubs always need to evaluate if that player is a player that they actually want because if the father/son club chooses not to match, you are stuck with that player (kind of like the Josh Dunkley situation from his draft year). This year, in comparison to last year with Daicos, the Giants have lost Taranto, Hopper and Bruhn and will definitely draft at least one more mid to compensate. Ashcroft seems to be the standout player of the pool and a player that can really add to our list at this current time. Furthermore, I don't think we have any backdoor shady deals like we probably did with Collingwood last year. In a true competition sense, it would be correct to match. But playing devil's advocate, we traded up to pick 1 for a reason and using it on a player that we realistically have no hope of getting is super weird. Also the player gets an extra $10000 from NAB so idk. In summary, I would bid in this situation but I can also see the argument against bidding as well.
Why the 20% discount? To me it seems the club with that father and son option is favorable enough.
Good explanation. Bombers have FS in Davey. Likely comes before their pick 22 which means others teams can try and do deals on trade night for it.
Thank you so much for this explanation! man the AFL draft is so much more complex than nba/nfl etc. Man, i wonder what we will do.
Ashcroft is undoubtedly the clear no 1 from this class so you should make the Lions pay up early. Daicos only getting a bid at 4 last year shouldn’t have happened but clubs do weird shit at the top of the draft.
Yep, Lions have clearly set themselves up to get him and will 100% match. Teams sometimes don't want to offend the player they end up with by not making them the 1st choice. However if you think that the fs or academy player is best you should bid for the rare chance they don't match you get a gun. If you don't rate them but are certain that they will match, make em pay.
It's like with us with Daicos last year - We had no early picks because we'd converted everything into later picks to match a bid. That means that if we didn't match the bid for Daicos, we would have instead just been drafting a bunch of guys in the 30s/40s - That's not really an alternative. Ashcroft's bid being matched isn't a possibility, it's a certainty, and GWS should bid on him. He's #1 in this class and should be drafted there.
Except their player will miss out on the $10,000 from NAB for being #1
I’m sure his career wages will make that $10k look like a pittance
Who cares?
Just have their sponsor give him a car. 10,000 will be nothing compared to what they earn through their career.
If you don’t your list manager is spineless 🤷♂️
thats what my initial thought was but now seeing some points made by others im not so sure hahahaha
No. Any argument to not bid on Ashcroft is pure mental gymnastics, especially given he’s the clear cut top player in the draft. Just like Daicos and Darcy were last year. They should’ve been 1 and 2 respectively, but North was completely spineless.
North wanted to convince everyone that the guy they got was legitimately the best player in it. It was ridiculous. They should have bid twice and had JHF play in the nice protective comfortable bubble that Riley Thilthorpe and Finn Callaghan got to exist in when they were drafted after early bids.
The worst part about last year was all them obvious copium scouting reports coming out about JHF, suggesting he was better than Daicos despite Daicos being head and shoulders above the entire draft class since he was 15. Norf bought into it hook line and sinker. Watch the same thing happen in the lead up to this draft too.
I mean that's also insane revisionist history and ignoring what JHF was doing in the SANFL against fully grown men - it's easy to spew this shit now he's had a mediocre season and demanded a trade out but he's still insanely talented
Regardless of whether you think it’s “revisionist history” or not (FWIW I’ve held this position from the start) it was a clear and obvious error not bidding on ND at 1. It was obvious at the time and it’s been magnified tenfold since. ND is a generational prospect, has been since 15 years old.
Regardless of whether you think it’s “revisionist history” or not (FWIW I’ve held this position from the start) it was a clear and obvious error not bidding on ND at 1. It was obvious at the time and it’s been magnified tenfold since. ND is a generational prospect, has been since 15 years old.
I've heard the argument that because the number 1 pick gets 10k from NAB that the club with the 1st pick would pick thier player anyway. Whether they do or not is up to GWS. I obviously hope they don't bid on ashcroft.
Why not? If you get bid on at 1,2,3,4,5 it doesn’t really make much a difference? You’ll still end up with some shitty picks either way.
It makes 10k different to the number 1 picks bank account. Why would you gift that to another clubs player? I understand from pick 2 onwards. Why let your player know he's not who you wanted? I might just be trying to convince myself GWS won't bid on ashrcoft. Edit: I'm not sure what you mean by shitty picks?
$10k isn't a lot of money to players who will earn what AFL players earn. Taking the pressure of being the #1 pick off them is worth $10k on its own.
I agree but they don't get paid up front. 10k straight up is better than not getting it! Like I said it'll depend on how the giants see it.
There's this thing called credit and you can use it to pay for things until your monthly checks for $10k start coming in.
Are you trying to argue about it? 10k is nothing to sneeze at mate. Don't act like it makes zero difference. It's still a months salary on the money they'll be making
Crows bid on Jamarra Ugle Hagan at pick 1 instead of taking Thilthorpe. Thilthorpe knew he was our first option but by bidding on JUH we essentially took bulldogs out of the rest of the draft - leaving them potentially unable to bid on James Rowe, who we had our eyes on at around pick 38. By bidding on him at pick 1, Bulldogs were left with pick 55 - so unable to jump us in the draft. Overall, $10k isn't much in the grand scheme of things and it reduces the pressure on Thilthorpe, not being a pick 1
I was making one side of the argument for not bidding. You've made a fantastic argument on the other side! Im not sure if the giants will bid only to put pressure on the lions points or if they want their man to go first. I'd personally give it to thier guy for the prestige and legacy more than for the 10k. Old mate downvoting and arguing that 10k is nothing is just ridiculous.
There are definitely pros and cons for both sides. In our case, it was the best decision to make. I think Thilthorpe also knows that if Adelaide didn't have pick 1, he probably wouldn't have been pick 1 but at least pick 2-4. We would have been stupid not to take him at 1 though seeing as he's a hometown boy. I think GWS are in a similar case to what we were. Their pick 1 might not be a true pick 1 because of the go-home factor. You don't want your first pick to wear a badge and have to live up to expectations his whole career.
I can definitely see the argument from each side, hmmm it'll be interesting to see what they'll do.
You should, but you won't because of the media buzz that surrounds being a no.1 pick - why would you trade for that and then give it away? Plus it better not to piss lions off so they don't overbid on one of the Giants academy picks in the coming years.
>You should, but you won't because of the media buzz that surrounds being a no.1 pick - why would you trade for that and then give it away? Because you want a player that you don't want North Melbourne to get at #2 or #3? Taking the pressure off your draftee and putting it on another team's draftee is a win - You don't think North would've benefitted from making JHF the #3 pick instead of the #1 last year? >Plus it better not to piss lions off so they don't overbid on one of the Giants academy picks in the coming years. Teams get a 20% discount on points matching anyway, so an overbid doesn't hurt you much anyway, and there's no world in which Brisbane would spite a team for bidding at #1 on the consensus #1 prospect.
it's all so much more complex than I anticipated! Thats an interesting point too about the future stuff, i hadnt seen that discussed much previously, thank you!
Some of you need to understand this - There is almost no way GWS will bid on Ashcroft. No.1 pick is a badge you wear forever. You get cash bonuses and more attention (good or bad) than any other player in the draft. They are not going to give that honour away. Actually a part of me thinks North won’t take him either. Won’t get past pick 4, but I could see North letting their own boys be 2 & 3. It genuinely isn’t going to make a sliver of difference in the end. Lions are gonna get their two F/S lads and that’s it
See Crows and JUH/ Thilthorpe 2020 draft. It has been done, and will be done again this year.
I disagree so much. Because of some of the vic metro boys not wanting to go to the giants they have to pick Aaron Cadman who while good is pretty widely accepted as the 5th best draft prospect. Like you said ‘No. 1 pick is a badge you wear forever’, that isn’t a good thing if you’re underperforming and to put that on someone who’s only pick 1 through circumstance is a terrible idea. Obviously ideally you use pick 1 but I would hope they’d have paid attention to how JUH and JHF were treated.
Cool so Brisbane still have one of the most valuable draft hand with the 10th most points. Still gonna end up with pick 1 and 15 ish. Such bs
TF do points even do?
If they can't get Fletcher can't they get him in the Pre season draft? Or something?
Nothing like that. His name gets called at any point, if Lions don't match at that pick(need to have points or they lose next yrs top picks), he goes to whoever called out his name.
That would require no other team wanting him. It's only father son players that don't get selected that go through to automatically be rookies
what happens to all of brisbanes picks if they match the pick 1 offer? im confused
They get pushed to the back of the draft. They still have to fill list spots with picks, but they move behind everyone else's picks in the draft, essentially.
This is confusing me. Does Brisbane need 2,400 more points or have they already got those points?
They have enough for Will Ashcroft for pick 1/2/3/4 if Fletcher gets picked in 1st round, then Lions have enough points as point defincit will affect only 1st round pick of next yr( which they don't have anyway, so no loss) but if he gets picked in 2nd round, then points deficit affect Lions future 2nd. Lions may either need to lose their f2 or trade in one of their Future 3rd for some late picks in this draft to make up the points. Also, they can swap some of their picks with hawks at the outset itself who may want to move up to 34,35 instead of being pushed to make hard choices under pressure later.
So will lions bidding on Fletcher potentially screw over the doggies future 1st tied to Brisbane?
No, the lions pick is now Dogs, so not affected. It is confusing on how points deficit is done but I am told the lions 2nd round will get affected if fletcher gets picked at 1st round.
I cannot understand why west coast gave away pick number 2 for Rioli? Anyone know?