Adelaide AFL 2024 Midseason Draft

[1990crow]

Definitely not. It will be an edict from the club to not select any player they don't think is worth the expenditure if resources.

However, I do sometimes wonder why the club is so worried about "resources". Given there is a salary cap that the poorer clubs can reach, we should essentially have unlimited resources.

If we can't afford to throw $60k or whatever it is for a six month contract plus whatever few additional man-hours it takes to coach them, then that's pretty sad.

It's a good point. Is it player welfare?
Don't want to give a 6 month contract to someone they don't rate and don't want to waste their time?

 

[Vader]

It's a good point. Is it player welfare?
Don't want to give a 6 month contract to someone they don't rate and don't want to waste their time?

Very much the latter.

 

[Eagleeyed77]

Four years on a crappy Gold Coast list and couldn't manage a single game

Don't hold that against him, so couldn't Jeremy Sharp. Gold Coast suns have a very woke selection policy. Many players selected before him have half his ability

 

[cmndstab]

It's a good point. Is it player welfare?
Don't want to give a 6 month contract to someone they don't rate and don't want to waste their time?

I doubt they're worried about the players' time. I'm sure it's not wanting to waste their own time.

I can kind of get it, as someone who works as an educator. I know how much more effort it takes to teach someone who is struggling, compared to someone who is doing well. It's probably not worth doing it for some mediocre state-level midfielder. Almost no chance of bridging the gap to them becoming a worthwhile AFL player.

But surely it's worth the try if you can find some athletic freak or 205cm+ player, and see how they evolve in a professional AFL environment?

I don't see how it's worth bringing someone like Gallagher over from Ireland, but not whatever 6'10 brick shithouse you can find who has decided to give footy a try.

 

[cmndstab]

Don't hold that against him, so couldn't Jeremy Sharp. Gold Coast suns have a very woke selection policy. Many players selected before him have half his ability

What does "woke" mean in this context?

 

[WeeBlake]

Very much the latter.

Makes no sense. These ppl all nominated

 

[Golumless]

I'm sure it's not wanting to waste their own time

I can kind of get it, as someone who works as an educator. I know how much more effort it takes to teach someone who is struggling, compared to someone who is doing well. It's probably not worth doing it for some mediocre state-level midfielder. Almost no chance of bridging the gap to them becoming a worthwhile AFL player.

But surely it's worth the try if you can find some athletic freak or 205cm+ player, and see how they evolve in a professional AFL environment?

I don't see how it's worth bringing someone like Gallagher over from Ireland, but not whatever 6'10 brick shithouse you can find who has decided to give footy a try.

Gallagher doesn't count as taking up a list spot for two years, whereas these guys do is another factor at play. Easier to take a flutter on an athletic freak if there is no consequence whatsoever.

Mind you, I think these players needed to have nominated for and went undrafted in the past which also lowers the possibility of finding those athletic freaks in this draft.

 

[cmndstab]

Gallagher doesn't count as taking up a list spot for two years, whereas these guys do is another factor at play. Easier to take a flutter on an athletic freak if there is no consequence whatsoever.

Sure, but the whole argument here is about the club not wanting to use resources on a player they don't believe in.

We can give these guys a six month contract without it having any impact whatsoever on our list spots, unless they hsve impressed in which case that's a win. If they haven't impressed by then, we can cut them and it will be exactly as if we passed on the pick in the first place... except for whatever loss of resources we incurred by taking them on.

 

[Vader]

Makes no sense. These ppl all nominated

That doesn't mean that they have any chance of making it, or are worth the club spending time/resources on them.

** The issue here is the club's time/resources, not the players' time.

 

[Mostyn]

I can't understand why you wouldn't use 3 picks when you have them.

Haggis is past his use by date.

Because you don't actually have the list spots.

Anyone you take now, it lessens the spots you have in November, because instead of freeing up three or four picks, you only have two or three. These guys are the leftovers of about three or four draft opportunities. They're not prime targets.

That being said, with Zac going down, it really makes sense to get another pick.

 

[Vader]

Sure, but the whole argument here is about the club not wanting to use resources on a player they don't believe in.

We can give these guys a six month contract without it having any impact whatsoever on our list spots, unless they hsve impressed in which case that's a win. If they haven't impressed by then, we can cut them and it will be exactly as if we passed on the pick in the first place... except for whatever loss of resources we incurred by taking them on.

But why spend any resources on them at all, if we don't rate them, and think their chances of making it at AFL level are remote at best? Just because we have resources available, it doesn't mean we should be pissing them away on players who have no chance of making it.

 

[Pugsley]

Because you don't actually have the list spots.

Anyone you take now, it lessens the spots you have in November, because instead of freeing up three or four picks, you only have two or three. These guys are the leftovers of about three or four draft opportunities. They're not prime targets.

That being said, with Zac going down, it really makes sense to get another pick.

Let's hope it's not a serious injury with Zac.

 

[cmndstab]

Because you don't actually have the list spots.

Anyone you take now, it lessens the spots you have in November, because instead of freeing up three or four picks, you only have two or three. These guys are the leftovers of about three or four draft opportunities. They're not prime targets.

That being said, with Zac going down, it really makes sense to get another pick.

If they give them a six month contract, they can delist them before the draft.

 

[Vader]

Because you don't actually have the list spots.

Anyone you take now, it lessens the spots you have in November, because instead of freeing up three or four picks, you only have two or three. These guys are the leftovers of about three or four draft opportunities. They're not prime targets.

That being said, with Zac going down, it really makes sense to get another pick.

That's true for players requiring an 18-month contract. It's not true for players on 6-month contracts. These can be delisted at the end of the year, with no change to our final pick count.

 

[Crows I Am]

Yes heard that yesterday. Unlike Port we dont recruit to strengthen the reserves.

Isn't that what we did with Brett Turner? Was he ever a chance to play AFL?

 

[cmndstab]

But why spend any resources on them at all, if we don't rate them, and think their chances of making it at AFL level are remote at best? Just because we have resources available, it doesn't mean we should be pissing them away on players who have no chance of making it.

Because we're in a competition where opportunities for clubs are capped. You only get so many chances to take players, and only so much money to pay them, etc.

As one of the richer clubs, we have an opportunity to throw money at a remote chance which might pay off. Even if it's only a 5% chance, why not give it a try? Do that once or twice a season and you'll hit the jackpot every 5-10 years. And all if will cost is some cash, which we should have plenty of, and man-hours.

Now if it's a 0.0005% chance, I agree it's not worthwhile. That's why I would prioritise athletic specimens who lack footy polish. Those are more likely to improve quickly than the 15th best leftover state league midfielder or whoever is available.

 

[Vader]

Because we're in a competition where opportunities for clubs are capped. You only get so many chances to take players, and only so much money to pay them, etc.

As one of the richer clubs, we have an opportunity to throw money at a remote chance which might pay off. Even if it's only a 5% chance, why not give it a try? Do that once or twice a season and you'll hit the jackpot every 5-10 years. And all if will cost is some cash, which we should have plenty of, and man-hours.

Now if it's a 0.0005% chance, I agree it's not worthwhile. That's why I would prioritise athletic specimens who lack footy polish. Those are more likely to improve quickly than the 15th best leftover state league midfielder or whoever is available.

The should absolutely grab a player if they think they have the potential to make it. On the flip-side, I see no reason whatsoever for drafting a player who they don't rate, just because we have list positions available.

... and by all accounts, there are only 10 players in this year's MSRD who the club does rate.

 

[cmndstab]

The should absolutely grab a player if they think they have the potential to make it. On the flip-side, I see no reason whatsoever for drafting a player who they don't rate, just because we have list positions available.

... and by all accounts, there are only 10 players in this year's MSRD who the club does rate.

I guess the question here is what "does not rate" means.

If a player is only a 10% chance of making it, do they rate that player?

 

[Dangerousfield]

Isn't that what we did with Brett Turner? Was he ever a chance to play AFL?

None, zero, zilch

Was a completely idiotic selection at the time and remains so in hindsight.

 

[Vader]

I guess the question here is what "does not rate" means.

If a player is only a 10% chance of making it, do they rate that player?

Probably not... though I'd be extremely reluctant to put a % figure out there, as to what is & isn't acceptable.

The club has said that there are 10 players on their merit list. Do not expect the club to be drafting anyone outside that list, because anyone outside that list simply isn't "rated" by the club.

 

[ams4crows]

The mid season draft should be about getting developing players on the list and or an emergency position cover if all the others in that position have long term injuries.

 

[Eagleeyed77]

What does "woke" mean in this context?

Players are chosen on their backgrounds and their ability to generate PR, started with K Hunt . There is a reason why they have never played finals.

 

[Golumless]

Sure, but the whole argument here is about the club not wanting to use resources on a player they don't believe in.

We can give these guys a six month contract without it having any impact whatsoever on our list spots, unless they hsve impressed in which case that's a win. If they haven't impressed by then, we can cut them and it will be exactly as if we passed on the pick in the first place... except for whatever loss of resources we incurred by taking them on.

But if you're asking:

I don't see how it's worth bringing someone like Gallagher over from Ireland, but not whatever 6'10 brick shithouse you can find who has decided to give footy a try.

Then you're getting into a different area which is cat B's don't put any stress on your list management. There's no doubt we believe in Gallagher, however, it's also easier to give him that time/spot because it doesn't mean delisting someone else for a couple of years.

At this point, you're at the dregs of the talent pool and unless you are covering for a sector that's been wrecked by injuries, 6 months is a waste of time. After all, you almost need to give them a preseason to see if there is anything worthwhile if they're a slower burn prospect and if a lad can compete for a best 22 spot now, again, you're better holding for 18 months.

The mid season draft should be about getting developing players on the list and or an emergency position cover if all the others in that position have long term injuries.

If anything, it's the opposite that's working, especially if you don't have pick 1. You're at the point now where the 'potential' players aren't worth a damn unless there is some exceptional reason - i.e. they're a ruck. Otherwise, you're just looking at kids who have slipped through the cracks and whilst there can be one or two good 19 year olds who do, they're rare.

This draft is fast becoming one where the main consideration has to be finding lads who can actively compete for a best 22 spot day one and fit whatever system you're building. I.e. your Nobles, Newcombes, Blanck etc instead of one where it's about filling out your prospect pool.

 

[Mutineer]

Didn't Hamish say they have about 10 players that have been on their watch list re the MSD...he also said it's likely most of them were also on other clubs watch lists. So I guess it's down to who's left on our list at pick 7. I'd be confident Geordie Payne would be No.1 on that list unfortunately.

 

[George Kramer]

Rowey said we’ve committed to Murray at pick 7, apparently Saints keen before us.

Now if that happens, all those saying that keeping Sloane didn’t have consequences……