A lot people in the media are saying we should bid on Levi Ashcroft... Including Rob Harding Sandringham Dragons coach, saying he deserves to be the number 1 pick. No chance in hell we bid on him, not only would the pick swap with Richmond & Brisbane have a handshake agreement, why would we give another club all the plaudits that come with being the number 1 pick in the draft?? It's an exciting time for Richmond & the fans, because we haven't had this quality of picks in the draft for a long time & I would feel disappointed if our player isn't picked at number 1.
@@Aka_daka yeah totally agree! I almost feel there needs to be third party decide their value. Ridiculous that they can do deals and receive discounts etc.
@@DylanAlexanderFollowsDraft I'm with you on get rid of F&S rule all together, makes the system way fairer. Steph Curry played for a different team than his dad & created his own legacy at the Warriors, I don't get the romanticism about playing the club your father played for.
Another aspect that I feel people don't often talk about is that a team can only take as many draft picks as they have open list spots into the draft, at least in theory this reduces the extent to which bids can be matched with loads of later picks that probably would never have been used anyway.
It will be interesting too see how the new points system turns out next year but I think a much better system would have been that you need to have a draft pick (for example 5 spots) within the nominated selection. So clubs need to get quality picks in or live trade on the night rather than just bank points with later picks. If Ashcroft got bid at 2 and Lions used 7 on him I think everyone’s pretty happy.
@@sleekism23 100% agree with this! Can’t see why they thought letting teams slide down the order was better than coming up! Just asking for dodgy trades that screw 16 of the 18 clubs not involved
In an ideal world you would get rid of all the compromises - no father-son, no free agent compo, no priority picks, no exclusive academy access, play each team twice a season etc. But we are a loooong way from being there.
@@DylanAlexanderFollowsDraft - agreed. I hate seeing a club hand over a bunch of rubbish picks for a first rounder to make up points (and even get a discount for it). To be fair, I don't think there's a better system as such, so really it just needs to be removed.
Is there still justification for the 20% discount? If anything you could ADD a tariff to a club artificially taking a player higher up the draft than the positions they’ve ‘earned’.
100% handshake deals are a thing. The 20% discount has never made sense to me and needs to be removed. Lastly a little context for the Riley Thilthorpe draft, apparently the club told him that he was their pick before the draft regardless of Jamarra being available but would used pick 1 to drain extra points from the bulldogs so the crows could also take later on James Rowe, who the bulldogs also had an interest in. Riley likely doesn't care about 10k in the grand scheme of things and I would also happy agrue that Riley is as good if not better given that he can also ruck and local talent being a big bonus. Side note not going number 1 likely removes a bit of pressure from the media and fans.
Great video once again mate! Personally, I think the bidding system has becoming increasingly compromised as the years go on with the expansion of academies. I think it’s something the AFL needs to sort out before Tassie are introduced or else the draft will be less of a factor and rebuilding will become extremely difficult. The draft needs to be preserved as it’s the most essential equalisation factor the league has, we don’t want clubs being down for too long. As a North Melbourne fan, it’s been hard to watch players like Jed Walter get stolen from us when key position depth is our greatest need.
Jed Walter wasn't "stolen" from you... I know you don't really care, but you need to see it from the AFL and GC's point of view - GC having their own academy solves the issue of them drafting gun interstate kids who'll turn out to be stars, to then be poached by powerhouse interstate clubs. The academies both serve to grow the game in QLD, and also give GC a fair shot at building sustainably competitive lists. I do agree with you though - GC need to pay a strict and fair price for their academy kids
@ yes “stolen” wasn’t the best use of the word. My whole argument is centred around the price that should be paid for these players. I think clubs need to hold a pick in the same round that the player is drafted in. So for a first round pick, they need to offer a pick in the top 18 or so, as well as whatever else is needed to reach the draft points. 4 meaningless picks in the 40’s is way too cheap
@@jackcro2146 Yep, I completely agree with that. Gotta have a pick in the same round for each player you're gonna take, most especially when it comes to 1st round talents
If the AFL doesn't want "side deals" then they should probably fully rework the system at a foundational level. It won't actually make the side deals go away, they absolutely exist in less complicated draft systems, but it will make them less obvious. Also, If you're a club in these positions why wouldn't you work out side deals that benefit you. Like why would Essendon not get Melbourne to agree not to take Kako alongside them moving up to get into the draft (same goes for GC and Richmond). Plus there's the added fact that there's only so many clubs to make deals with and I can only imagine you don't want to make too many enemies by just being a dick to a club you worked a deal with. Hell I argued that if the Saints had any interest in Shiel Rosa should just give him to them for less than a bag of peanuts if they agreed to not draft Kako. I wouldn't have even complained if that was the official trade that was lodged and announced (I know that's not possible but it would be funny to see it as it's announced). .
hypothetically, if a bid was made and the nominated club couldn't match the points, would the player be forced to go to that club against their wishes? seems like a pretty silly system in execution because that player will probably just leave after their first contract is done or try and force a trade after 1 season - so there's no real incentive or value in trying to get a player who's heart and mind is already at a rival (20% discount seems like they just stuck a finger in the air when making the rules up too!)
If it were up to me: Remove the 20% discount on matching first round picks Change Northern academies to only be able to match outside first round Change NGA to only be able to match outside second round
@@lawlordummett2851 yeah 100% agree on the discount, it’s absurd. With the academies, I like in theory that a club with an academy is incentivised to recruit and develop players so in that sense matching outside the top 20 would mean clubs wouldn’t invest in their academies which is a shame. I’d be happy with a middle ground where clubs could match but need to hold a draft pick reasonably close to the bid.
Agree with some past hand shake deals or just favours from clubs with the old wink wink I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine later. Though didn’t the pies make a mess of the trade with the Giants. Of course they weren’t expecting to bottom out and fall to 2nd last and because of their total mismanagement, they definitely would have gotten Finn Callahan and Daicos that year as Francis was touted as clearly number 1 and north were happy for him to get they finical bonus. Always dangerous giving away future firsts. Melbourne next season. Dicey. Collingwood again. Missed out on pick 10 this year so could have been hunting another gun youngster and still have gotten Houston. Instead they paid way overs for Shultz a defensive forwards who they already had in Mcreery. Judging your list and predicting position going forward is key. I’m a hawk and we did get Carlton’s first and 2nd to offset losing our next years own but my gut feel is the eagles chose wisely there. Think Carlton are top 4 top 2. Prediction 2nd from me. Hawks maybe 5th to 7th. Draft this year. 2 overrated players Murphy Reid and Smiley who’s closer to Hopper than Greene. 2 underrated kids Dattoli. And Langford , also as an old boy I’ve studied drafts since late 1980s when no one had any idea. This draft is definitely no super draft. Many seem to get carried away easily. More on the average side. Depth decent , high end not good. Time will tell as we know. Anyways love your work.
That’s a totally fair call. I don’t feel as nostalgic about it but also the team I support has missed some father sons like Nick Blakey and Josh Kelly. I feel bigger stronger clubs usually get the spoils.
@@DylanAlexanderFollowsDraft the only thing I've gotten from my team's father sons the past few years has been nostalgia. (Fletcher, Long, Hird, Wanganeen, Davie) I know some of them weren't taken in the national draft but I think you still get the point! As for the concept as a whole, less than 20% of players that make it on to a list go on to play 100 games. The percentage of those players that have a son that goes on to nominate for the draft is even fewer. Given that one club is only going to have access to around 1/16 of those players at any given time, I think the advantage that the older clubs get over the newer clubs that don't have access to father sons yet is miniscule. Having said all that, I agree that clubs should have to pay a fair price for them though. I just don't know what a better system would look like.
@ you’re video shows Richmond and you say clubs should bid on Levi Ashcroft then you talk about trading pick’s which Lions did with tigs so you have to actually say Richmond should bid when it already replied it in the footage
Nope. Goes to the player. 2nd pick gets $5k. The difference is a single match payment. No one cares about the bonus, it is a sponsor-driven thing. A photo opp for the sponsor, doesn't impact anyone's decisions.
![#262 Chris Fagan [Dyl & Friends]](/img/n.gif)
video quality just keep getting better and better
@@Bennywop thanks mate ❤️ hope you enjoyed!
A lot people in the media are saying we should bid on Levi Ashcroft... Including Rob Harding Sandringham Dragons coach, saying he deserves to be the number 1 pick.
No chance in hell we bid on him, not only would the pick swap with Richmond & Brisbane have a handshake agreement, why would we give another club all the plaudits that come with being the number 1 pick in the draft?? It's an exciting time for Richmond & the fans, because we haven't had this quality of picks in the draft for a long time & I would feel disappointed if our player isn't picked at number 1.
@@Aka_daka yeah totally agree! I almost feel there needs to be third party decide their value. Ridiculous that they can do deals and receive discounts etc.
@@DylanAlexanderFollowsDraft I'm with you on get rid of F&S rule all together, makes the system way fairer. Steph Curry played for a different team than his dad & created his own legacy at the Warriors, I don't get the romanticism about playing the club your father played for.
Another aspect that I feel people don't often talk about is that a team can only take as many draft picks as they have open list spots into the draft, at least in theory this reduces the extent to which bids can be matched with loads of later picks that probably would never have been used anyway.
It will be interesting too see how the new points system turns out next year but I think a much better system would have been that you need to have a draft pick (for example 5 spots) within the nominated selection.
So clubs need to get quality picks in or live trade on the night rather than just bank points with later picks. If Ashcroft got bid at 2 and Lions used 7 on him I think everyone’s pretty happy.
@@sleekism23 100% agree with this! Can’t see why they thought letting teams slide down the order was better than coming up! Just asking for dodgy trades that screw 16 of the 18 clubs not involved
@ and the club still gets value and the player. Hard to understand why they didn’t go this way.
In an ideal world you would get rid of all the compromises - no father-son, no free agent compo, no priority picks, no exclusive academy access, play each team twice a season etc. But we are a loooong way from being there.
Yeah 100%, I’m mainly keen to see clubs pay a fair price for these players!
@@DylanAlexanderFollowsDraft - agreed. I hate seeing a club hand over a bunch of rubbish picks for a first rounder to make up points (and even get a discount for it). To be fair, I don't think there's a better system as such, so really it just needs to be removed.
Hey Dylan, that was a fantastic video, you explained everything in a way that was easy to understand.
A very well put together video-I loved it 👍😊👏
Pretty sure the saints will bid on Lombard and Kako so their clubs have to use their picks and help bring the saints later draft picks forward
Is there still justification for the 20% discount? If anything you could ADD a tariff to a club artificially taking a player higher up the draft than the positions they’ve ‘earned’.
…but I wouldn’t like to see the F/S mechanism disappear completely.
100% handshake deals are a thing. The 20% discount has never made sense to me and needs to be removed. Lastly a little context for the Riley Thilthorpe draft, apparently the club told him that he was their pick before the draft regardless of Jamarra being available but would used pick 1 to drain extra points from the bulldogs so the crows could also take later on James Rowe, who the bulldogs also had an interest in. Riley likely doesn't care about 10k in the grand scheme of things and I would also happy agrue that Riley is as good if not better given that he can also ruck and local talent being a big bonus. Side note not going number 1 likely removes a bit of pressure from the media and fans.
Great video once again mate!
Personally, I think the bidding system has becoming increasingly compromised as the years go on with the expansion of academies. I think it’s something the AFL needs to sort out before Tassie are introduced or else the draft will be less of a factor and rebuilding will become extremely difficult. The draft needs to be preserved as it’s the most essential equalisation factor the league has, we don’t want clubs being down for too long.
As a North Melbourne fan, it’s been hard to watch players like Jed Walter get stolen from us when key position depth is our greatest need.
Jed Walter wasn't "stolen" from you... I know you don't really care, but you need to see it from the AFL and GC's point of view - GC having their own academy solves the issue of them drafting gun interstate kids who'll turn out to be stars, to then be poached by powerhouse interstate clubs. The academies both serve to grow the game in QLD, and also give GC a fair shot at building sustainably competitive lists. I do agree with you though - GC need to pay a strict and fair price for their academy kids
@ yes “stolen” wasn’t the best use of the word. My whole argument is centred around the price that should be paid for these players.
I think clubs need to hold a pick in the same round that the player is drafted in. So for a first round pick, they need to offer a pick in the top 18 or so, as well as whatever else is needed to reach the draft points. 4 meaningless picks in the 40’s is way too cheap
@@jackcro2146 Yep, I completely agree with that. Gotta have a pick in the same round for each player you're gonna take, most especially when it comes to 1st round talents
If the AFL doesn't want "side deals" then they should probably fully rework the system at a foundational level. It won't actually make the side deals go away, they absolutely exist in less complicated draft systems, but it will make them less obvious.
Also, If you're a club in these positions why wouldn't you work out side deals that benefit you. Like why would Essendon not get Melbourne to agree not to take Kako alongside them moving up to get into the draft (same goes for GC and Richmond). Plus there's the added fact that there's only so many clubs to make deals with and I can only imagine you don't want to make too many enemies by just being a dick to a club you worked a deal with. Hell I argued that if the Saints had any interest in Shiel Rosa should just give him to them for less than a bag of peanuts if they agreed to not draft Kako. I wouldn't have even complained if that was the official trade that was lodged and announced (I know that's not possible but it would be funny to see it as it's announced). .
hypothetically, if a bid was made and the nominated club couldn't match the points, would the player be forced to go to that club against their wishes? seems like a pretty silly system in execution because that player will probably just leave after their first contract is done or try and force a trade after 1 season - so there's no real incentive or value in trying to get a player who's heart and mind is already at a rival (20% discount seems like they just stuck a finger in the air when making the rules up too!)
If it were up to me:
Remove the 20% discount on matching first round picks
Change Northern academies to only be able to match outside first round
Change NGA to only be able to match outside second round
@@lawlordummett2851 yeah 100% agree on the discount, it’s absurd. With the academies, I like in theory that a club with an academy is incentivised to recruit and develop players so in that sense matching outside the top 20 would mean clubs wouldn’t invest in their academies which is a shame. I’d be happy with a middle ground where clubs could match but need to hold a draft pick reasonably close to the bid.
Agree with some past hand shake deals or just favours from clubs with the old wink wink I’ll scratch your back you scratch mine later. Though didn’t the pies make a mess of the trade with the Giants. Of course they weren’t expecting to bottom out and fall to 2nd last and because of their total mismanagement, they definitely would have gotten Finn Callahan and Daicos that year as Francis was touted as clearly number 1 and north were happy for him to get they finical bonus. Always dangerous giving away future firsts. Melbourne next season. Dicey. Collingwood again. Missed out on pick 10 this year so could have been hunting another gun youngster and still have gotten Houston. Instead they paid way overs for Shultz a defensive forwards who they already had in Mcreery. Judging your list and predicting position going forward is key. I’m a hawk and we did get Carlton’s first and 2nd to offset losing our next years own but my gut feel is the eagles chose wisely there. Think Carlton are top 4 top 2. Prediction 2nd from me. Hawks maybe 5th to 7th. Draft this year. 2 overrated players Murphy Reid and Smiley who’s closer to Hopper than Greene. 2 underrated kids Dattoli. And Langford , also as an old boy I’ve studied drafts since late 1980s when no one had any idea. This draft is definitely no super draft. Many seem to get carried away easily. More on the average side. Depth decent , high end not good. Time will tell as we know. Anyways love your work.
i absoulutly hate when teams dont bid on players. i dont know what the AFL can do about it but i hope they work out somehting
Protect the top 19 picks from academy and father son bids... solves everything.
I can't wait for the day we have a total uncompromised draft.
I don't see how father sons are really that big of an issue, and would personaly hate to see them go
That’s a totally fair call. I don’t feel as nostalgic about it but also the team I support has missed some father sons like Nick Blakey and Josh Kelly. I feel bigger stronger clubs usually get the spoils.
@@theknightwhosmokedthelaugh7156 for me it’s more just making teams pay a fair price which isn’t currently the case.
@@DylanAlexanderFollowsDraft the only thing I've gotten from my team's father sons the past few years has been nostalgia. (Fletcher, Long, Hird, Wanganeen, Davie) I know some of them weren't taken in the national draft but I think you still get the point!
As for the concept as a whole, less than 20% of players that make it on to a list go on to play 100 games.
The percentage of those players that have a son that goes on to nominate for the draft is even fewer. Given that one club is only going to have access to around 1/16 of those players at any given time, I think the advantage that the older clubs get over the newer clubs that don't have access to father sons yet is miniscule. Having said all that, I agree that clubs should have to pay a fair price for them though. I just don't know what a better system would look like.
If you don't like it then don't have the bidding system. Clubs will always take the pi55 wherever they can
Yeah! Interesting discussion though, I hope the AFL atleast makes it more difficult for clubs to get access to these players!
So pretty much it’s a big circle jerk amongst clubs. Excuse the French 😂
@@HisTuness it really is 😂
You don’t have him at pick 1 yet want him to be bid at pick 1
@@SuperBLUEIRIS I never said I wanted him to be bid at 1 😂 I’m sure there’s clubs that rank him top 3 though.
@ you’re video shows Richmond and you say clubs should bid on Levi Ashcroft then you talk about trading pick’s which Lions did with tigs so you have to actually say Richmond should bid when it already replied it in the footage
I just rewatched it and you do talk about Richmond and Levi did you forget your own post
I believe the $10k goes to the local club the number 1 pick came from not the player themself.
Interesting, I’ll chase that up. Some documents I read had the 10k included and others didn’t. I think it’s supplied by NAB
Nope. Goes to the player. 2nd pick gets $5k. The difference is a single match payment. No one cares about the bonus, it is a sponsor-driven thing. A photo opp for the sponsor, doesn't impact anyone's decisions.
If Brisbane were a Victorian based club the AFL wouldn’t care about this at all